Click the Pelts
Support Our Viking Kitties
Donate to Free Republic
Sign up to donate monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly donor
Posted on 02/13/2012 6:04:33 AM PST by PizzaTheHut
With Contraceptive Mandate, who's really in bed with "Big Pharma" now?
You may be right that the insurance companies have been quiet on this mandate because they might think that it will be a cost saver for them in the end.
My personal feeling on this is that the only outcome of this mandate is higher insurance premiums to cover the costs.
The people who currenly use contraceptive will continue to use them and the people who don’t use them will continue to not use them.
There won’t be any less unwanted pregnancies or births, or lower overall healthcare costs as a result of this mandate.
There are ways to lower the costs of healthcare, but this mandate is not one of them.
I’m afraid you haven’t got it. What Santorum meant was the drug companies should increase the drug prices in order to make more profit in order to ... blah-blah.
That’s NOT free market. Free market means to put different companies in concurrence on the same products, which will LOWER the prices NOT increase them. Giving to some specific companies the control of the market is the reason of soaring costs of the healthcare. It’s the government and FDA fault.
“Healthcare insurance SHOULD NOT pay for ANY contraceptive item”
I agree. The more items that are added to one’s insurance plan, the higher the premium costs for everyone.
Despite the liberal argument, these items are not medically necessary.
Plain and simple, as an another example, if an insurance policy doesn’t cover Durable Medical Equipment, then unfortunately a wheelchair won’t be covered when it’s needed. I understand that folks can be angry when they complain that their insurance won’t pay for a wheelchair, but insurance, like anything else, is you get what you pay for. When your policy doesn’t cover something, that’s less money you’ve been paying all along in premiums.
Obama is trying to drive ins. premiums up and run ins. companies out of business:
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2012/02/10/obama-administration-doubles-down-on-contraception-rule/
Posted by streiff (Diary)
Friday, February 10th at 2:00PM EST
35 Comments
Following on what my colleague Francis Cianfrocca writes below, the Obama Administration’s ballyhooed “compromise” on the extraordinary rule that gives the US Department of Health and Human Services the final say in how religious groups operate is actually a finger in the eye.
From the White House statement:
Under the new policy announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works.
If a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge.
If we actually believe that in the real world TANSTAAFL is an immutable fact, who, then, is actually paying for the “free of charge” contraception and abortifacient cover. My guess is that the employer whose employees are getting the “free of charge” service is going to see their bill go up.
This is not a trivial issue. This is an attack, one of several staged by this Administration, on religious freedom. One hopes that the Catholic Church and other religious groups see through this charade and continue to oppose the supplanting of conscience by federal regulations.
No, a totalitarian wanna be in the White House and his statist minions in Congress are responsible. Blaming this legislation on "Big Pharma" is nothing more than class warfare BS that should be left to the Marxist in the White House, his statist minions, and other assorted and sundry useful idiots.
What a crock. The drug companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars to bring new therapies to market. Depending on the size of the potential market, they have to charge accordingly to recoup their investment and make a profit. That's how the markets work -- or is how they are supposed to work. Most NME's require at least a dozen years to finally become commercialized. That doesn't leave a lot of time to make back their investment before the patent(s) expire.
Anyone calling for controls over what the drug companies can charge, or what they can earn, is uniquely unqualified to be lecturing anyone about markets. Countries that impose price controls on drugs do not create new drugs. There's a good reason for this. Anyone arguing in favor of government forcing industry to share their intellectual property, for the good of society -- or whatever other BS you can come up with, is an economic illiterate and a collectivist.
Healthcare is expensive because we have a third-party pays system, and because providing the best healthcare in the world is expensive.
Are you AT ALL familiar with Article 1 Section 8 clause 8 of our Constitution?
Do you think it works as designed to promote the useful arts and sciences?
Do you understand why the vast majority of scientific innovation comes from America?
Are you opposed to the intellectual property rights recognized under our Constitution?
I wished I shared you idyllic view of "Big Pharma". Alas, I don't. The pharmaceuticals companies are continually successful in having natural remedies removed from the marketplace such as ephedra because 2 or 3 people died of heart attacks but they put out "pseudoephedrine" which is, as it name implies, fake ephedra which must be bought at the pharmacy and come with a list of side effects that make it sound safer to drink Drano.
I'm not saying the pharmaceutical companies are evil incarnate nor am I saying they are pure as the wind driven snow. But, if you don't think they are in cahoots with RATS and RINOs to keep us dependent on their products, well, let's just leave it at that.
Ephedra was responsible for killing for than a few people. There are many others who will suffer life long health effects because of that "natural" remedy. The product should have been removed from the market much sooner, but because it wasn't considered a pharmaceutical, the product remained available for a long time. The only thing you need to know about Ephedra is how strongly Orrin Hatch defended the drug when the lobbyist were lining his pockets and how quickly he changed course when it was clear that the "remedy" was killing and injuring people. Don't you hate it when big government (led by a RINO like Hatch) protects "natural remedy" manufacturers even when it's clear that their products are dangerous? But you're against that, right?
Why would you use pseudoephedra when it comes with a list of side effects that make eating Drano safer? Did the "natural remedy" company provide a list of potential side effects with their bottles of Ephedra?
The belief that Big Pharma is making you dependent on their products is the worst kind of tin foil. Anyone who thinks that "Big Pharma" is in cahoots with the government, to ensure this alleged dependence, doesn't know much about the relationship between the fedgov and the pharmaceutical industry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.