Good Day Kossaks.
There is an aspect of the contraception and health insurance debate that seems to be under appreciated. The leverage/group negotiation aspect of health insurance (and unions).
Just like the government, health insurance companies in America have two functions. The most obvious is pooling the comparatively small payments of numerous people over time so that when a large expense comes due it is paid from the pool. The piece that is not discussed enough is the better negotiating stance one has by being a bigger counterparty. Health insurance companies pay much less than individuals for the same procedure, because they are negotiating on behalf of the group. My hernia operation cost my health insurance company about 15% of what it would cost me. The health insurance companies usually tell you what you would have paid verse what they paid and what you actually had to pay out of pocket. They like showing their value add. What I don’t understand about the health insurance and union discussions is why the better leverage in negotiation is not front and center in the conversation. The right is fighting for their right to have no leverage. It’s business school drop out type thinking.
For birth control, it’s not that you are paying for someone else’s birth control as much as it is that you are using the leverage of being a bigger counterparty to get a better price. This is basic market participant behavior. For something like birth control it’s the whole point. Birth control isn’t something that is very expensive once in a blue moon. It’s an everyday expense. Not being a moron, I’m all about having greater leverage in the price negotiation. How is this controversial? Why isn’t this the focus of the discussion?