Doublethinking With Sebelius
Marvel with me as King Barack's Lord of Affordable Care, in an interview yesterday on PBS Newshour, attempts to explain how her edict mandating free contraception and pharmaceutical abortion for all will simultaneously 1) save a typical woman "up to $600, which is a substantial financial barrier"; 2) not be paid for by religious institutions since "actually, this is a no-cost benefit"; and 3) is a no-brainer for insurers since implementing her holy writ "could reduce an insurance plan by about 15 percent."
RAY SUAREZ: Secretary, can we talk about mechanics? If you've just taken a new job at a religiously based hospital or university, your employee paperwork is silent on reproductive health care, what happens next?
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, typically, if you are a new employee and in an insured plan, the insurance company or the variety of insurance companies are the ones who actually publish the benefit package.
So, in this case, again, the insurance company would be reaching out to employees, making it clear that it is their choice whether to access contraceptive benefits. And what we know, Ray, is that actually this is a no-cost benefit, that the National Business Council on Health, that our actuaries, a variety of people in group plans say having contraception as part of a group insurance plan actually lowers the overall cost, doesn't increase it, because, on balance, preventive services around family planning, avoiding what may be unhealthy pregnancies, avoiding the health consequences of that actually is a cost reducer.
So we have a situation where the insurance companies directly offer this benefit to the women employees, and the religious employer doesn't pay for it, doesn't refer to it, and doesn't have to offer it.
RAY SUAREZ: You say money from the religious institutions doesn't pay for this, but isn't money fungible?
If a Catholic nonprofit is paying for your insurance coverage, isn't it paying for contraception if you are getting the coverage through that same insurer?
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, again, Ray, in this case, actuaries have looked at this benefit.
The federal employees health plan, when contraception was added to federal employees' benefit, which is the largest employee group in the country, costed this as no cost, free, no cost, because adding contraception and having some employees take advantage of that coverage lowers the overall cost of the health plan.
So we have that in place around the country. We have actuaries that have inserted that, and so we're not -- this isn't a shell game of passing the costs along. This is a real no-cost option that is, according to the National Business Council on Health, could reduce an insurance plan by about 15 percent. We're not counting on that.
But I think we can say very safely that this doesn't add to the cost of either the employer's plan -- and we know that women, if they have to purchase this coverage outside of a health plan, could spend up to $600, which is a substantial financial barrier to access a very important health benefit and a benefit used by 99 percent of women across this country at some point in their lives.
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
The lady -- if that is the right word -- has no shame. We will soon find out whether the Catholic bishops have backbones.
May '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
$600 a year is a "no cost option"? It pay for itself and no one anywhere has to front the cash!
Maybe they really have discovered the fiscal magic they appear to be counting on to balance the budget. ObamaCare just pays for itself across the board, no one even has to write a check to anyone anywhere.
Shouldn't she be consulting for the Greek government? They need this miracle.
Feb '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
I understand their reasoning. It offsets the cost of childbirth and other related expenses, so actuarially, yes, it can be offered at a net savings to the insurer.
That said, I object to the whole idea that the insurance policy should be covering this kind of thing at all. Period. Here's my reasoning. Insurance should be only for covering catastrophes that would make a serious, unforeseen dent in your finances. That's why I'm a huge fan of HSAs coupled with high-deductible (and much more affordable) insurance policies for the emergencies. This is what we have here at Ricochet.
You save for your normal health expenses tax-free (which shouldn't be necessary, ideally, but it does help to incentivize people to do the right thing and save). Then, you are in direct control of purchasing your drugs, including contraception.
There is no free lunch. If contraception is really a net savings, and that is a consideration in making that particular decision, let the consumer decide with the real economic numbers in front of them. Let the economic information that affects this decision not be distorted by the idea that it's a "free benefit."
Edited on February 11, 2012 at 6:50pmSep '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
This is what I keep telling family and friends who favor Obamacare: you think it's going to fix medical problems when actually all it's going to do is politicize every aspect of so-called health care. Virginia Postrel wrote a very good Atlantic article on this a couple of years back (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/03/my-drug-problem/7279/).
Edited on February 11, 2012 at 6:57pmRe: Doublethinking With Sebelius
BSA, I think it would be more accurate to say that you understand their spin. The "reasoning" that if I spend a lot of money right now I will save money in the long-run is used everywhere by everyone trying to sell nearly everything. Sometimes, I confess, it may even be true. However, I note that the Lord High Secretary is arguing by assertion and appeal to authority rather than offering any actual facts.
In this case, I am certain she is mistaken about any net cost-savings.
Imagine how colossally stupid those greedy health insurers would have to be -- operating as they do on paper-thin margins -- to ignore the opportunity to give away $600 worth of free stuff (customers love free stuff) and thereby realize an incredible 15 percent reduction in plan costs. This would be the win-win profit opportunity of the millennium.
Edited on February 11, 2012 at 6:59pmMar '11
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
It doesn't just pay for itself, Duane. It actually lowers the cost of the coverage, which of course means that the insurance companies will be making more profit, hence paying more taxes! It's like a tiny stimulus, with money we don't spend multiplying as we don't spend it into vast sums of phantasmal wealth!
The Obama Administration has transmogrified mathmatics. All they have to do now is unveil the Perpetual Motion Machine and all our earthly problems are solved.
Aug '11
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
You guys don't understand about actuaries. A good actuary can prove anything. Or disprove it. And nobody other than another actuary can say with any certainty that he's wrong. Or right. But that's meaningless because no actuary would say either of those things about another actuary's work.
When actuaries argue it isn't like accountants or lawyers arguing. It's more like two super-string physicists arguing, or like Roger Corman's The Raven, where Vincent Price and Boris Karloff throw spells at one another.
Nov '11
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
I agree with the rest of your post - but how exactly can this statement be proved? How many people will use contraceptive drugs that wouldn't otherwise have because of the "free" contraceptive coverage? How many people would have used other, "less effective", methods of contraception without the "Free" coverage of contraceptive drugs? Can this be quantified? And at what point does people not having kids result in diminishing returns (you don't have any GDP without people to produce) ? Leftists don't want anybody having more than their allotted number of children (it smacks too much of being fruitful and multiplying) - but they especially don't want poor people having too many children, because it burdens their welfare state too much, and besides, poor people are just icky. Think PJ's exaggerating? You should listen to some of the Leftists I'm acquainted with talk about Wal-Mart patrons.
Jun '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
To the above who caught it before me, yes, I'm simply amazed that none of the insurance companies ever thought of this groundbreaking cost savings measure before. How did they all miss that all these years? Our government has saved us again. (okay, my sarcasm meter is used up, sorry)
Sep '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
But can't the same person who one year buys contraceptives have a baby a few years later, in which case, it's an actuarial wash?
May '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
I hold a low- (but rapidly increasing) premium/high deductable policy. I'm responsible for the first $5,000 dolars in medical expenses I incur each year. Naturally, I've never filed a claim, and if I ever do it will be because I have suffered some quite grave injury or illness.
Have my premiums nearly doubled in two years so Suzy The Co-ed, whose recollection of last night's frat party is a little spotty, doesn't have to pay for her morning-after pill?
Edited on February 11, 2012 at 7:36pmFeb '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
Leslie Watkins
But can't the same person who one year buys contraceptives have a baby a few years later, in which case, it's an actuarial wash?
I concede your point. Still, even if it were a savings (I'm granting their point for the sake of the argument), I'd rather the consumer make that decision for themselves with undistorted economic incentives.
May '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
If free contraceptives saved the insurance companies money, then every insurance company, everywhere, would be offering free contraceptives -- i.e., there'd be no need for the mandate in the first place. It's B.S.
This is a sex subsidy. That's about it.
Nov '11
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
Scott Reusser:
This is a sex subsidy. That's about it. · 1 minute ago
Is it really? Does the government really think that people who can't afford contraceptive drugs are so stupid that they can't satisfy their sexual desires without risk of pregnancy? And remember, this is about people who are employed; contraceptive drugs aren't that expensive. I am inclined to believe that DrRich is right, as frightening as that seems.
Sep '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
$600 works out to $12 a week. No one in their right mind, and Barack Obama and Kathleen Sibelius are certainly in their right minds, thinks that it is of crucial importance to cover an elective personal activity to the tune of a maximum of $12 a week.
This is fascist enforcement of moral conformity, nothing else.
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
This is fascist enforcement of moral conformity, nothing else. · 4 minutes ago
KTC, I think it may be about something more: voters. Single women vote disproportionately for liberal Democrats and this is an election year where President Obama needs to motivate his base to get out and vote. Think of it as a campaign expense being paid for by you, me and everybody else.
This is the trouble with all socialized medical systems. Politicians want to use the funding on "preventive" services, which translates to "free stuff to win the allegiance of healthy voters." Meanwhile, really sick people cost a lot more per vote so, at the margin, they can molder on waiting lists or die quietly without treatment.
May '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
Mothership_Greg
Scott Reusser:
This is a sex subsidy. That's about it. · 1 minute ago
Is it really? Does the government really think that people who can't afford contraceptive drugs are so stupid that they can't satisfy their sexual desires without risk of pregnancy? And remember, this is about people who are employed; contraceptive drugs aren't that expensive. I am inclined to believe that DrRich is right, as frightening as that seems. · 8 minutes ago
All true. I was making a joke -- calling B.S. on all the "prevention" stuff. (Although in a theoretical sort of way, it is a sex subsidy, in the same way that passing out free condoms to high schoolers is in a non-theoretical sort of way.)
Jun '11
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
Mothership_Greg
Scott Reusser:
This is a sex subsidy. That's about it. · 1 minute ago
Is it really? Does the government really think that people who can't afford contraceptive drugs are so stupid that they can't satisfy their sexual desires without risk of pregnancy?
Yes, I suspect the government does think that, and for once I'd agree with them. Although it's not so much stupidity, as lust.
Jun '11
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
"Sex subsidy" - bam, you nailed it in two words. Very, very well done.
Sep '10
Re: Doublethinking With Sebelius
I wonder instead of making points about contraception and its affect on religious freedom we shouldn't instead be making some points about the overall precedent this is going to set on liberty overall.
Using the argument about cost savings, what is to stop the government from declaring that insurance companies need to monitor each person's Visa bill to ensure they are making healthy choices to achieve cost savings? Or simply placing burdensome taxes on "unhealthy" things that could cause increases in health care costs? Everything from table salt to motorcycles could be taxed to oblivion.
What is to stop the government under a future right wing administration from using a cost savings argument to declare that the male homosexual lifestyle, rife with bloodborne diseases, needs to be curbed through mandatory sexual education of gay men and periodic monitoring of their blood samples to ensure they are getting the message? Or what is to stop them from being effectively quarantined by compelling them to disclose their status to anyone who needs to know?
Today its the Catholic Church and their losing argument over contraception as a moral choice. Tomorrow it will mean the loss of liberty through economic means.