Birth Control, Third-Party Payer, and the Politicization of Health Care

Townhall.com ^ | September 14, 2014 | Daniel J. Mitchell

[Kaslin]

America’s health care system is a mess, and we can assign almost all the blame on government. Simply stated, we don’t have functioning and efficient markets because Medicaid, Medicare, tax-code distortions, and other forms of regulation and intervention have created a system that is crippled by a third-party payer crisis.

There’s no logical reason to expect consumers to be smart shoppers, after all, when they’re only responsible for directly paying just 11 cents for every $1 of health care they consume. And providers have little reason to be efficient when they know that consumers are largely insensitive to price.

Let’s now apply these insights to the political controversy over birth control. Except, as I explained in July, there is no fight over birth control. As far as I’m aware, nobody is trying to ban birth control.

The real fight is whether the government should mandate that health insurance plans include coverage for birth control (and certain abortifacients).

[YouGoTexasGirl]

I’m commenting without reading the whole article as I could not connect to it. Insurance companies are also a major cause of our current problem. They have negotiated with events whereby individuals are covered under an insurance plan and individuals can be switched to Medicaid when an expensive event happens....take for example premature babies. Also, they went to bed with the Democrats on Obamacare thinking they’d greatly increase their treasure chests and now suffering cause some will take the penalty vs. get insurance.

A country like ours without values, morals and ethics is on a downhill slide and even those who do the right thing will be hurt the more. For example, doing the right thing by exercise and eating right....when we signed up for insurance we got healthy rates. With Obamacare they’ve more than doubled even with a $5K deductible!!

[stanne]

They can just start with recognizing that not only is birth control not health care, but that it is anything but

People do not want to look at that.

THe healthy and the normal state of the uterus is pregnancy. Anything preventing or aborting that is not healthy.

If people want to say that it is not healthy for the woman to be pregnant, the time and place to do that is way before that, as has been in the entire history of the human race until pharmaceuticals cam a long with a pool of suckers to purchase their pills and potions.

Then the culture changed to go around that.

The problem was forseeable, and was prophesied by the Catholic church whose members rejected it and still do.

But the logical teaching is that birth control is a wide reaching problem.

When looked at in that way, this headline is wacky.

And when looked at from the point of view of medicine, as well, birth control is not womens’ health.

It is titrated poison, which is a class I carcinogen, in the same class as cigarette use.

Not a health issue.

It is a lie.

From the World Health Organization (forget the IRS-level corrupt NIH):

The following oral contraceptives are listed along with some other Group I Carcinogens for reference.

From the document:

Estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy (combined) (Vol. 72, Vol. 91, Vol. 100A; in preparation)

Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Vol. 72, Vol. 91, Vol. 100A; in preparation)
(NB: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)

Estrogens, nonsteroidal (Suppl. 7, Vol. 100A; in preparation)
(NB: This evaluation applies to the group of compounds as a whole and not necessarily to all individual compounds within the group)

Estrogens, steroidal (Suppl. 7, Vol. 100A; in preparation)
(NB: This evaluation applies to the group of compounds as a whole and not necessarily to all individual compounds within the group)

Estrogen therapy, postmenopausal (Vol. 72, Vol. 100A; in preparation)

[Oral contraceptives, combined estrogen-progestogen: see Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined)]

Oral contraceptives, sequential (Suppl. 7, Vol. 100A; in preparation)

Asbestos [1332-21-4] (Vol. 14, Suppl. 7; 1987)

Benzene [71-43-2] (Vol. 29, Suppl. 7; 1987)

Formaldehyde [50-00-0] (Vol. 88; 2006)

Gallium arsenide [1303-00-0] (Vol. 86; 2006)

Plutonium-239 and its decay products (may contain plutonium-240 and other isotopes), as aerosols (Vol. 78; 2001)

Radioiodines, short-lived isotopes, including iodine-131, from atomic reactor accidents and nuclear weapons detonation (exposure during childhood) (Vol. 78; 2001)

Radionuclides, a-particle-emitting, internally deposited (Vol. 78; 2001)
(NB: Specific radionuclides for which there is sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity to humans are also listed individually as Group 1 agents)

Radionuclides, b-particle-emitting, internally deposited (Vol. 78; 2001)
(NB: Specific radionuclides for which there is sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity to humans are also listed individually as Group 1 agents)

Radium-224 and its decay products (Vol. 78; 2001)

Radium-226 and its decay products (Vol. 78; 2001)

Radium-228 and its decay products (Vol. 78; 2001)

Radon-222 [10043-92-2] and its decay products (Vol. 43, Vol. 78; 2001)

X- and Gamma (g)-Radiation (Vol. 75; 2000)

Tobacco smoking and tobacco smoke (Vol. 83; 2004)

Most assuredly some are stronger than others. The danger in the less potent carcinogens lies in the propensity for a long-term exposure with its cumulative mutagenic effects.

Also on the list was Chinese salted fish. Not sure what’s in there, but will find out, as it was a staple in grad school.