Because there is a benefit to having a child. We have enjoyed so many abortions in this country that we have little population growth which is one of the main arguments of those who support increased immigration. You are actually supporting population replacement not abortion. Where do you get $50,000 a year? Where? For how many years? Will the child ever be assumed to be a productive citizen and pay insurance premiums or will the pool of insured just get smaller and smaller by attrition? Or, just have the immigrants start paying their own premiums. Now if you imagine that prenatal care and chikld birth costs $50,000, what you are saying is that the same child would have to be born every year in perpetuity.
What's difficult to get across, is that you see no benefit whatsoever in assuring the health of the next generation. From a merely dollar and cent perspective. Every child born has to to be a total drain on the nation and utterly useless. Like those who populate the OWS sites.
No one is suggesting that men and women be denied sufficient amounts of recreational sex. It should be considered like any other recreational activity and paid for by the individuals. We don't have insurance policies that pay for ski equipment, or buy new surfboards. Of ALL the specious arguments, the one that says women are basically too lazy to trot down and get free contraceptives is the worst. If someone does not want to take advantage of an opportunity, it is not up to someone else to pay them to be that lazy. That's your argument, that woman are too lazy to take care of their own reproductive needs! Seriously! Maybe they are too lazy to get off their ass and get the pill out of the cabinet, or drawer. Maybe men are just too lazy to slap on a condom. We have reached heights of lazyness unimaginable. If they have enough energy to fuck, they have enough energy to go to a clinic, with a little motivation they can rouse themselves enough to do it.
I don't think you're understanding me, Katz!
My argument IS NOT children are too expensive to bring into the world, and that I dont see all of the wonderful things population growth would mean for our country. Im in 100% support of women, when they WANT to have kids, to do it. And Im 100% in support of the insurance covering those procedures.
But what you dont get, is Im talking about the pool of women specifically who are sexually active, and DO NOT want a child. They are willing to take the risk of having sex, anyways, and as a result it puts the insurance company at risk TOO, because they will have to cover all of the medical procedures related to the pregnancy if they are to become pregnant.
To protect against this risk, I argue that the insurance company offer the BC pill option so that women who fall into this specific pool sexually active, and DO NOT want children can use it to curb the risk of pregnancy.
So out of a pool of 10 women who fall into this category, 0 get pregnant, whereas (for the company that offers no BC coverage) 4 of the women get pregnant.
Its a cost benefit analysis.
The insurance company is not thinking about the long term benefits of population growth, its thinking about saving money TODAY.
Ohhhh, then all insurance companies have to do is issue a press release that says if they don't have to cover contraceptives, they can reduce ALL premiums by $3.00 a month and the argument is OVER. Following your line of reasoning, insurance companies should cover ski safety equipment because it lessens the risk of serious injury for those who choose to ski.
Here is your reality. A birth control pill that costs $9.00 at Walmart could cost $400.00 if covered by insurance. When you go to the hospital and get an aspirin your bill might reflect $120.00 for two aspirins. Why is this? Gouging? No. Most of the cost of insurance claims is in the paperwork necessary to process those claims. There are as many forms and personnel to process those forms necessary for a birth control pill or a childbirth.
Since we are talking about what is primarily a recreational activity, it makes sense to have the person engaging in that activity to pay for their own receational expenses.