Except that it’s already been pointed out that lack of contraceptive coverage is not the problem.

There is no reason to think that it is the problem. The available evidence suggests that people who experience unintended pregnancies had access to affordable birth control.

So is there any reason to bring this back in, other than the need to get us off the topic of religious freedom and onto the “talking point” of “health” (so necessary for Obama’s strategy to work)?

The problem is that your evidence doesn’t actually prove anything of the sort, because there’s no logical causal link and no controlling for variables.

The “logical” conclusion is not to assume that you’re right, but rather to assume that this study is the latest in that long string of “Obama supporters throw around manipulated numbers” – throw it on the stack with “98% of Catholic women use birth control” and all the “increasing spending will reduce the deficit” budget proposals.

Lying with statistics is like crying wolf; after a while, nobody even cares enough to debunk the stats.

You can’t blithely agree to disagree on the solution and mention the Church opposition to artificial birth control as if that isn’t the whole point of this insurance controversy. We think artificial contraception, sterilization and abortion are wrong. Don’t coerce us into wickedness. Considering the life and death issue, the financial number crunching is disgusting.

Peg,

Surely you are aware—with abortions running at over a million a year in the United States—that there is a problem with unintended pregnancies. We can disagree about how the problem should be solved (abstinence, Natural Family Planning, contraceptives), but surely it is not wicked in and of itself to try to get the rate of unintended pregnancy down from 49%. The Catholic Church has officially acknowledged the legitimacy of limiting and spacing children (for married people, of course) since Pope Pius XII, although “artificial” methods are still forbidden.

It figures this White House is thinking of money instead of morality. Old people are also economic drains on insurance companies. Maybe the White House and insurance companies can brainstorm that problem, too, now that they have thought through the money-sucking “problem” of pregnant women and babies.

Blake,

But I haven’t argued contraceptives don’t really cost anyone anything. Obviously they cost money. However, I have presented evidence that insurance that covers contraceptives is either cheaper than, or costs the same as, insurance that does not cover contraception. It is really not difficult to understand.

Now, there is the argument that although the cost of the insurance will not increase for the employer, and possibly could decrease, their dollars will still be paying for contraceptives. But I have dealt with that argument elsewhere.

True, but it’s fun watching David Nickol argue – apparently straight faced – that contraceptives don’t really cost anyone anything.

Condoms really just grow on trees. That occur naturally. And they fall into neat little piles – at night, of course.

pentamom,

Yes. I assume you didn’t see my message of 3:17 pm when you wrote your message of 8:26 pm. To repeat: “Notably, the federal government, the nation’s largest employer, reported that it experienced no increase in costs at all after Congress required coverage of contraceptives for federal employees in 1998.”

Do these numerous studies apply to women who are already covered by health insurance, and who have household employment coming in?

If you don’t control for that, the studies don’t apply to this situation. Women who have their health care costs generally provided for and a steady income are more likely than average to already be obtaining at their own expense and using whatever birth control methods they would obtain if covered by insurance.

If it’s really true that women with sufficient income to afford birth control are having babies they actually don’t want all over the place just because nobody’s picking up the tab for the birth control itself, this is a weird, weird world we live in.

pentamom,

If there is a fallacy, it is assuming that armchair analyses of insurance benefits and costs are more accurate than industry studies. From the Washington Post:

The administration thinks this is a good deal for insurance companies since the economics tend to work in their favor. Numerous studies have shown that covering contraceptives is revenue-neutral, as such preventive measures can lower the rate of pregnancies down the line. Pregnancy and childbirth coverage is, of course, much more expensive.

Some of the evidence:

Some studies have looked at cost-savings for private insurers specifically. Notably, the federal government, the nation’s largest employer, reported that it experienced no increase in costs at all after Congress required coverage of contraceptives for federal employees in 1998. A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health, a membership group for large private- and public-sector employers to address their health policy concerns, estimated that it costs employers 15–17% more to not provide contraceptive coverage in employee health plans than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity. Mercer, the employee benefits consulting firm, conducted a similar analysis that year and also concluded that contraceptive coverage should be cost-saving for employers.

If you and Gail Finke are correct, the cost to the federal government should have gone up when it added contraceptive coverage for federal employees. But it didn’t.