Thursday, October 12, 2017

A Better Pill ?

As a registered Democrat, I receive several emails a day from DNC telling me what to think and what to support and asking for money.  About a week ago, one of the DNC emails told me this about employer-sponsored medical insurance: 

“Today, the Trump administration announced that they're rolling back a mandate requiring employer-provided health insurance to cover contraception -- a rule that has helped at least 55 million women across the country access care.”

There are many sources (here’s one)  that discuss this rollback; it’s far more complex than DNC suggests. But whether the issue is simple or complex; whether details are offered or suppressed; and whether facts are understood or ignored - I think this issue will remain just as controversial, emotional, and resistant to logical analysis as it was before Obamacare.    

Why is that?  Because insurance for contraception has been politicized.  It's a good example how the expanding role of government in providing medical insurance, politicizes medical coverage decisions.  The experience in many other countries teaches that politicizing medical coverage decisions is usually not a good thing.

Keep in mind DNC raised the question of coverage for women who are employed and have incomes.  The great majority of working women can buy contraception using their own income.  For them, insurance is not necessary to access contraception.  So then why do some advocates insist that coverage is unacceptable if it pays a penny less than 100%?  Is $50 a month unaffordable for most working women?  $25 a month?  And why is my own party telling me that coverage less than 100% will reduce access to care for 55 million working women? 

Also consider that employers do not pay their employees above & beyond their wages to cover food, clothing, or utilities.  Is contraception a higher priority than food, clothing, or utilities?  Is there a persuasive argument that employers are denying their employees access to food, clothing, or utilities? I’ve not seen one. Or that the federal government must step in to mandate such extra payments in the name of employee access to food, clothing, or utilities?   I think not.  And that's why I doubt that “free” contraceptive coverage for working women is necessary.   

My opinion: the fundamental issue here is less about the cost of contraception or the level of insurance coverage for it or even access to care.  Instead, the fundamental question is more about whether the federal government has a duty to mandate 100% coverage of contraception for working women.

My opinion:  coverage of contraception for employees is better left voluntary, purchased by employers who choose to purchase it (e.g., Hobby Lobby) based on their own employees' preferences and needs  And I think regardless of the employer’s choice whether to buy such coverage, it is not unreasonable to ask working women to share some part of the cost.  Maybe even the full cost.
blog comments powered by Disqus