I am blown away by the uproar of woman across the country regarding insurance companies refusal to include birth control as a covered drug. Certainly when a woman who has a medical issue where birth control pills are the best remedy to cure or control their medical issue their insurance company with a diagnosis and recommendation from a doctor should treat the birth control pills as any other prescribed medicine under the patients policy.
There are some policies that exist that do cover birth control pills for the simple purpose of preventing pregnancies. If that is important to a woman as a consumer of insurance then they have the freedom to purchase such a policy. Said coverage should not be on the backs of tax payers who subsidize insurance costs for a large share of the population nor on paying insurance policy holders whose rates go up the more insurance companies pay out.
Birth control for the use of preventing pregnancy is not a medical condition. Having sex is a choice that a person makes. Having sex may or may not lead to becoming pregnant. Some argue that it is advantageous for the insurance companies to cover birth control as it is cheaper than covering the cost of a birth. If that is the case then why shouldn’t insurance companies be required to cover salads at restaurants so people will not get obese and risk acquiring hypertension, diabetes or any of the other diseases linked to obesity. If we go down this road where does it stop?
In the recent testimony given by a Georgetown University law student she testified in front of a congressional committee that the $3000 she claimed co-female classmates spend over a 3 year period in law school is a severe financial and emotional burden. That in comparison to the $60,000 a year tuition and room and board is a bargain.
Studies show that college students spend an average of $466 per year on alcohol. Again, life is a series of choices, can I afford to have sex at the same time I go to law school? Can I afford to go to a Georgetown bar and drink if I go to law school? The sense of entitlement in the young in America continues to grow and the government influence on choices we make such as having or not having a child is growing. Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in recent testimony to a House panel is quoted as saying “the reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception” and went on to say that the “cost is down not up”.
What this boils down to is population control and government influence on your personal choices and the imposition of financial burdens on the tax payer and insurance companies and policy holders. Government has no business being in the business of birth control.