Obamacare

Insurance Should Cover Contraception, Says Institute of Medicine

|

When the time is right

Yesterday, a committee convened by the Institute of Medicine made various recommendations regarding preventive care services for women that should be covered by public and private health insurance providers. One of the controversial recommendations is that insurers should cover contraception, including emergency contraception, and that they should be available without co-payments. 

Not surprisingly, proponents of certain religious beliefs who think that God didn't mean for people to use their intelligence to devise birth control methods objected to the recommendations. 

In any case, it turns out that most insurers already include contraception in their policies. According the Guttmacher Institute:

• One-quarter of the more than 20 million American women who obtain contraceptive services from a medical provider receive care from a publicly funded family planning clinic.

• In 2008, 7.2 million women, including 1.8 million teenagers, received contraceptive services from publicly funded family planning clinics in the United States.

• Federal employees are guaranteed insurance coverage for contraceptives.

• Nine in 10 employer-based insurance plans cover a full range of prescription contraceptives, which is three times the proportion that did so just a decade ago.

• Twenty-seven states now have laws in place requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs in general to provide coverage for the full range of contraceptive drugs and devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Just a speculation: Even if contraception coverage were not mandated, insurers might be very happy to include it in their policies considering the costs of covering child births (coverage of which is, of course, mandated). 

Roughly 40 percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Considering that taxpayers are on the hook anyway, another Guttmacher Institute report points out

…that two-thirds of births resulting from unintended pregnancies—more than one million births—are publicly funded, and the proportion tops 80% in a couple of states. The cost of those births, and the potential gross saving from helping women to avert them, is estimated at $11.1 billion.

Go here for the complete list of IOM recommendations. 

NEXT: Is the Gang of Six Debt Plan a Tax Increase?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Reproduction! How the fuck does it work?

    1. When a daddy bird loves a mommy bird very very much…

      1. A South Alton man accused in two armed robberies at local pharmacies is back in custody after violating a condition of his recognizance. Kentville Police and Kings District RCMP officers arrested him without incident.

        Baird is charged with stealing prescription medication from Mader’s Pharmacy, Coldbrook, July 18, 2010, and the Clinic Pharmacy, Kentville, April 23.

        Nothing else happened.

        http://www.kingscountynews.ca/…..custody-/1

  2. It should also cover my internet porn addiction, but if it’s mandated, my choices would be limited, so.. fuck that.

    1. You scared us for a minute there.

      1. Now I understand some of you don’t know Sarah Jane, so I’ll tell you a little bit about her. She’s a lesbian eskimo midget albino. she went to college and she started the lesbian eskimo midget albino student union, and 400 people signed up! There they were, hundreds of ’em – lesbian midget left-handed eskimo albinos. Did i mention the fact she’s left handed? She’s left handed alright. Girl’s got some strange hobbies. One of her hobbies is lowering children into open man-holes. Which is kind of difficult cause a lot of the children are taller than her, her being a midget and everything – or her being a left-handed midget – or her being a left-handed lesbian midget – or her left-handed lesbian albino midget – or her being a left-handed lesbian albino midget eskimo. Life can be really difficult on that young lady. She bit me once, you know. Right here. You see this? Left a mark. She was lowering a friend of mine’s kid into the sewer. I run up and tried to stop her, I said “listen there you lesbian midget left-handed albino! You stop right there!” And she bit me. I’m afraid I’m gonna… I’m gonna turn into a lesbian left-handed midget albino when the moon is full. Oh my god the moon is full tonight! I can feel myself shrinking. I can feel myself getting left-handed. I can feel myself getting the urge to build an igloo. I can feel my skin turning white and my eyes getting red. I can feel – I can feel the urge to buy a Suzanne Vega album! Noooo!!! Noooo!!!! Noooo!!!! Auuggghhh!!! Oh, okay, it was just gas.
        -Dead Milkmen

        1. Hell yeah, Dead Milkmen were the first band I went to see at an actual bar/club.

        2. FTR, I was going to add Albino and Piss-slut, but ran out of room

  3. “One of the controversial recommendations is that insurers should cover contraception, including emergency contraception, and that they should be available without co-payments.”

    And that’s the problem I have with it.

    So what do males get covered sans co-pay?

    1. Your county health office? I do contract work for the FLDOH and I have seen literally pallets of condoms shipped in. 3′ cubes of condoms. All to be given away for free.

      1. Condoms are not a male-specific item. They are for a wman’s protection too. That is why prostitutes buy them.

        1. The women Gobby sleeps with wear condoms…

          1. FTW!

            MNG, that one comment right there makes up for 50% of all the stupid shit you’ve ever said here at H&R.

            Sorry Gobby

            1. He has his moments.

              1. I still laugh when I read it. Although, is it possible that The Gobbler is a women. The comment would still be funny, but for different reasons.

        2. Condoms are not a male-specific item. They are for a wman’s protection too. That is why prostitutes buy them.

          I’ve been in a meeting all day, so my head is a bit thick right now. Was this written with a nice dollop of irony or is it as thickheaded as I first assumed?

          1. It was written by Gobby, that should answer you.

          2. I’m serious. Condoms are non-gender-specific. And gender was what my original post was about. You know, teh poor womens what can’t manage their own reproductive help without the paternal assitance of Uncle Sam. Keep your laws off my body? Remember that one?

            1. Should read “reproductive health”.

            2. “Condoms are non-gender-specific.”

              Dude, I don’t want to know about the women or condoms that you’ve had experience with….

              Seriously though, if your argument is that the use of a condom has benefits for the non-using partner isn’t that true for the pill as well (I’d say the gal I’m shagging not getting pregnant when I don’t want her to is a benefit).

              1. If a guy puts a condom on his dick and inserts it into a vagina, I would contend that both parties realizing a benefit. That’s why I brought up prostitutes. I used to be on the board of a non-profit that helped young women escape prostitution. Those women were given free condoms and they knew the importance of using them.

                1. I used to be on the board of a non-profit that helped young women escape prostitution via a tunnel that ended t my house.

                  1. Again, seriously though, it takes two to make a baby, both the condom and the pill help those two prevent that.

                    1. Statistically speaking, condoms are a piss poor choice for birth control. The issue I was addressing was STD’s and STI’s, not babies.

                  2. I used to be on the board of a non-profit that helped young women escape prostitution via a tunnel that ended t my house.

                    You’re on a roll today, keep up the good work.

                2. My first assumption was correct?! Yikes.

        3. Doesn’t the same apply to other forms of contraception? A lot of men are pretty happy for the pill.

    2. Oddly enough, at least in my insurance policy, vasectomies are covered, whereas IUDs are not.

    3. Well there’s Viagra which is covered by most insurance, as well as Medicare (I dont wanna think about that).

      1. Why isn’t Viagra considered a recreational drug?

        1. It’s a work expense if you’re married.

        2. “Not being horny” is a medical condition and treatment is expected.

          “Not being high” is required by law and can be enforced with bullets and prison.

        3. If it was “recreational,” it would have to be banned. The DEA keeps it available by prescription with the farcical justification that “Erectile dysfunction” is actually a medical condition, because if they didn’t old people would stop their kneejerk support of the war on young people’s preferred drugs.

        4. It’s the only thing anyone remembers me for!

  4. “Roughly 40 percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.”

    The best things in life often are unintended.

  5. I’d be willing to sacrifice my libertarian principles and allow vasectomies to be covered so that Sugarfree, Epi, Warty, John, Sarcasmic, and ESPECIALLY Dunphy can all get vasectomies for the good of us all.

    1. What about rather’s tube-tying procedure?

      1. No body actually fucks her. So we don’t have to worry about it.

      2. “What about rather’s tube-tying procedure?”

        I’m told her cat just HATES it.

    2. Dunphy get one just so he could spend all day looking at the scar.

      POS PIG!

    3. She beat me to it and got herself fixed. But not before we made a little one. I’ll be sure to raise her to be a good liberty loving libertarian.

      1. There’s irony in there, I just can’t put my finger on it.

    4. After the third one didn’t take, I decided not to try any more.

    5. Don’t forget about Steve Smith.

      1. What doctor is brave enough to approach Steve Smith’s scrotum?

    6. Johnny Socko!

      Vasectomy

  6. I should ask my HR lady why they’re going to slap smokers with an extra fee, but not pregnant people.

    1. If noone on earth ever smoked again it would not lead the the end of the Human species.

      1. $50 extra, screw that, I’ll never fuck again!

      2. If noone on earth ever smoked again it would not lead the the end of the Human species.

        And if none used contraception that would be the end of the human species? Apparently, contraception doesn’t mean what you think it means.

        1. Apparently you completely misunderstood my point.

      3. Oh, please. Gag.

        The end of the human species is not coming. Ever. There are and always will be plenty of sperm-sniffing apes like you out there beating their chests about how wunnerfull it is to bloat the wombs of the Earth with your sacred seed. Humans were in no danger of extinction when there were a tiny fraction of us, and we’re sure as hell in no danger of extinction now.

        And, of course, you can offer no justification for your base assumption that the human species must-must-must be preserved (assuming, again, that it’s in any danger at all, which it isn’t). I suspect the only real justification you can offer is that you and your brood vaguely resemble said species, and so therefore, it must be valuable.

        What a bunch of pompous, masturbatory, self-congratulatory horse shit.

        1. Posting while PMS’ing violates one of the forum rules, I’m alerting a moderator as we speak.

        2. “There are and always will be plenty of sperm-sniffing apes like you out there beating their chests about how wunnerfull it is to bloat the wombs of the Earth with your sacred seed.”

          I am a libertarian and if you choose not to get pregnant that is your business. I have no desire to force my values upon you as long as you agree to do likewise. But I will tell you there are lots of women who have strong maternal instincts and very much want to have children. You might have had some traumatic event that causes you to think of this process as distasteful, I do not judge you. But lots of women find it beautiful.

          “Humans were in no danger of extinction when there were a tiny fraction of us”

          [Citation needed]

          “and we’re sure as hell in no danger of extinction now.”

          This depends, part of the Earth like Europe and Japan have rapidly declining birth rates. If these trends both spread and continue where they are now present it is possible.

          “And, of course, you can offer no justification for your base assumption that the human species must-must-must be preserved”

          Incorrect. However you explain our now-existing-here-and-now, whether this be purely scientific or religious or spiritual or some combination thereof the fact is that we were created into a game of life that pits us against competing elements within our natural world. The game wants us to keep playing and it is a game that I quite enjoy, if you do not I have no desire to force my values on you if you agree to do likewise. But we have characteristics that enable us to manipulate our natural environment. If you find this distasteful stop participating – but do not try to tie our hands as we continue to do what we evolved to do.

          1. However you explain our now-existing-here-and-now, whether this be purely scientific or religious or spiritual or some combination thereof the fact is that we were created into a game of life that pits us against competing elements within our natural world. The game wants us to keep playing and it is a game that I quite enjoy…blah blah blah

            Blah blah blah. Of course you enjoy it; you’re not the one doing the c*ntwork of diaper changes, gestation, grunting the sucker out of your body, and feedings. You’re on your computer beating your chest while your wimminfolk are tending to your “game pieces.” Um, speaking of [citation needed]…

            Again, what I specifically asked for was some justification for why humans must be preserved above all else. I asked you to read, not breed, but I can see how you could get the two confused. I’d quite already given up getting any proof from you that the human race is in any danger of extinction, to support your implication above that preggos should receive subsidies or encouragements from their employers, and that not doing so somehow mysteriously contributes to the “end of the human species.”

            1. “Of course you enjoy it; you’re not the one doing the c*ntwork of diaper changes, gestation, grunting the sucker out of your body, and feedings. You’re on your computer beating your chest while your wimminfolk are tending to your “game pieces.”

              There are plenty of men who participate in housework. If you choose not to participate, fine, don’t. There are things I do not enjoy doing but I do not begrudge others who do. I don’t particularly enjoy watching baseball on TV. If some people do, fine. I don’t go around posting snide comments about my opinions of the sport on blogs in response to people who do.

              “Again, what I specifically asked for was some justification for why humans must be preserved above all else.”

              No, you didn’t say “above all else” before. Your implication here is that our existence is at the expense of something else. This need not be the case. I think we will one day colonize other planets and move into the universe. It is possible for us to expand our population infinitely without being at the expense of anything else.
              I am sure you will retort “but what about the dodo!”. So let me ask you this question: “Can you offer any justification for your base assumption that the dodo species must-must-must be preserved?”

      4. If no one on earth ever fucked again, it would not lead [to] the end of the Human species either.

        1. Eventually, it would, unless humans are created in a laboratory.

    2. Eh. A friend of mine didn’t have a pregnancy rider on his wife’s health policy. They are paying cash for baby number 2. The reason they didn’t have the rider is (according to him) because they are quite pricey and usually aren’t written retroactively.

      1. The expense of evicting the little trespasser will be as nothing compared to the expense of raising him.

  7. “One of the controversial recommendations is that insurers should cover contraception, ”

    THIS IS NOT INSURANCE!! Sorry, got a little excited for a moment. The need for contraception is, much like the need for myriad other things we need/would like to have in our daily lives, is a forseeable expense one can plan for. What passes for ‘insurance’ when we talk about medical ‘insurance’ plans that cover routine visits, forseeable events etc. is really a payment plan. Calling it insurance may make it easier to pass off something we need to subsidize, but it is not insurance and doesn’t follow the actuarial realities of insurance.
    -K

    1. Insurance should pay for anything related to health or the body. Birth control, even deodorant is a human right that society should provide to all members.

      1. Fail. What you describe isn’t “insurance”. Why are lefties so intent on lying/so afraid of describing their schemes as what they actually are?

        1. Then change the legal definition of insurance to mean what you want it to mean.
          Make it more inclusive.

        2. in?sur?ance/in?SHo?or?ns/Noun
          1. A practice by which a company provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.

          Interesting point, I guess it does not cover preventive care at all. Of course the problem is that such care may redound to the insurers benefit.

          1. All three of you missed the email address on Tony’s post?

            1. That’s Tony’s actual email address! Seriously though, I figured the call for single-payer deodorant would have given it away…

  8. Here’s an idea: how’s about you just make hormonal birth control available OTC? That whole “charge you $100 for a 5 minute visit to check your blood pressure and write a prescription” is a sweet racket, but it would be nice if women could just access this extremely widely used substance without any gatekeepers. Then you wouldn’t have to force any companies to do anything.

    1. I’d bet the AMA would position themselves squarely in the path of that reform.

    2. But without gatekeepers, NPR would have a flipout!

      1. and the keymaster would be really lonely.

        1. Speaking of which, insurance doesn’t cover fetish gear either. Discrimination!

          1. Depends on your fetish gear.

            (wait for it…)

            1. Like that adult diaper stuff you’re into? Or is there an insulin kink community out there?

              1. There is a sexual fetish where people are injected with insulin to the point of coma, so that their partners can simulate necrophilia.

                1. For real? I thought I just made that up. Sometimes it’s comforting to know I still have shreds of innocence.

                2. I always learn things I didn’t want to know coming here.

            2. Wheelchairs and adult diapers, eh?

              1. Damn, late to the party!

    3. If it is OTC, then you can’t force the taxpayers to pay for it for you. That’s why you get people coming into the ER demanding prescriptions for cough syrup and Tylenol so their “insurance” (they are always Medicare patients) will pay for it.

  9. Ok, ok, let me fix this for libertarians…

    Insurance Should Be Free to Cover or not cover Contraception

    1. Just like they Should Be Free To Cover or not cover Delivery?

    2. Insurance Should Be Free to Cover or not cover Contraception

      I am a bit confused, or else you are. Yep, just checked and it is you who are confused, as usual.

      Who made this decision? Insurance companies and their customers? Oh, some busybody government agency. Would the government coercing insurance companies with a threat of liability be the same as “free to cover or not”? Only in the bizarro MNG world.

      You really don’t understand the difference between compulsion and free choice, do you?

      1. “You really don’t understand the difference between compulsion and free choice, do you?”

        Er, these were recommendations, right?

        1. ” a committee convened by the Institute of Medicine made various recommendations regarding preventive care services for women that should be covered by public and private health insurance providers.”

          1. Have you missed all the “they have a chance to do it voluntarily, before we force them to do it” stories?

        2. Yeah, just like the ones I make my children. I recommend they do things and they suffer the consequences if they don’t. The fact that I don’t specifically mention the repercussions of failure to follow my recommendations hardly removes the potential for coercion.

          Why would the government be spending money recommending ANYTHING when we are a gajillion dollars in debt?

          Are you really claiming that you think there will never be any force behind these “recommendations”? Happens all the time, government recommends, industry doesn’t follow recommendations, government walks away? Lay off the stupid pills. You don’t even believe this shit.

  10. Coverage for any elective procedure (or pharmaceutical or device) should be optional. The IOM, of course, is either outright proposing, or laying the groundwork for, another benefits mandate.

    A big, big part of the unavailability of affordable health care insurance, and the increase in health care expenses globally, can be laid at the feet of benefits mandates.

    Birth control, like viagra (and abortions), is elective, a lifestyle drug. No one should be required to pay a premium for it.

    1. this is setting groundwork for the ACA essential benefits rule, which will drop this fall.

    2. But it’s the externalities argument. Public funds go to pay for the ‘extra healthcare’ associated with unintended pregnancies etc., so therefore this will save us untold billions.

      1. Yeah, the idea is that preventing unwanted pregnancies would be a boon to society in ways that fostering boners in old dudes would not…

      2. The argument is that these people who can’t be arsed to put on a condom will take a pill every day, right?

        1. Condoms suck dude. They lessen the enjoyment and break often. Besides, the half that takes the pill ain’t the half that puts on the condom, right?

          1. I’m just pointing out that people who can’t be bothered to consider the consequences of unprotected sex can’t be bothered to consider the consequences of skipping the pill.

            1. I dunno Brett, both can happen to people who are the most part pretty responsible people.

              1. I’m not saying that ALL unplanned pregnancies are the result of irresponsible behavior, but I would say the majority are.

                1. That may be true or not, my point is that many responsible people do acts that could result in pregnancy (forget to take a pill, have unprotected sex) occasionally.

    3. Not all birth control is purely elective. Birth control pills are prescribed to 15 million women in the U.S. for treatment of hormonal imbalances and relief of endometriosis.

      But the kicker is, it’s pretty easy for the doctor to know, when prescribing, whether hormonal birth control is being used to prevent pregnancy per the patient’s choice, or whether it’s being used to treat a potentially life-threatening hormonal imbalance.

  11. Any chance to have a sane, rational discussion of sexual and reproductive health untainted by conflicting views of “sexual morality” or “proper sexual behavior” vanished back when that asteroid hit Mexico, thus ensuring Earth’s dominant species would be mammals bearing live young, rather than egg-laying reptiles.

    1. I currently have a desperate crush on you, Jennifer. Your question to the drug warrior politician, “how long should the paraplegic medical MJ user be put in jail” absolutely cemented my admiration.

      Off topic, I know, but I just wanted you to know that you are the tits!

      1. Um, I’m not “the” tits despite having a pair.

        An archived copy of the drug-warrior story is here, in case you’re interested:

        http://jenniferabel.blogspot.c…..icine.html

        I wish I could say it led to wonderful changes, with the medical MJ bill becoming law and that odious state legislator losing her next re-election bid. (Actually, I “could” say this; it’s just that I’d be lying.)

        1. Jennifer, my compliments on your article. My crush on you just grows!

          SIV, barf away.

        1. Jealous?

          1. *RALPH* *BUICK*

    2. Its just a strange accident of nature that weak and fragile monkey-men somehow came to subjugate the other species. I would have put my monies on birds or ants.

  12. I fucking hate babies. Outlaw them, please.

    1. …so only Outlaws would have babies? Great, a bunch of illegal, well-armed, babies, that’s just what we need.

      1. How about concealed carry permits for babies? That way you would never know if someone had a baby with them…

        1. Liberals could have one-baby-a-month laws and of course close the babyshow loophole.

          1. Shit, its already illegal to sell them.

        2. This sounds unfeasible, babies are bulky, fragile, loud, and smelly messes. Not exactly the kind of object you can tuck under your waistband, or even stuff in a backpack.

          No,I’m afraid babies must go the way of the passenger pigeon.

          1. So we could only have open carry…

      2. Actually, I think a bunch of illegal, well-armed babies may be exactly what this country needs.

  13. Considering that taxpayers are on the hook anyway,

    There’s your pavement for the road to hell, right there.

    1. If you’re rich enough, you’ll be able to get taxpayers to pay for anything.

  14. I guess I’m still confused as to why “insurance” is needed to cover known, plannable, budgetable expenses and not just to help cover catastrophic events.

    1. Because if it doesn’t then people would have to pay for known, plannable, budgetable expenses out of their own pocket.
      How dare you promote personal responsibility?
      Next you’ll be saying that justice is more important than fairness, or that equal opportunity is more important than equal outcomes!

      1. How is justice different than fairness?
        jus?tice/?j?stis/Noun
        1. Just behavior or treatment.
        2. The quality of being fair and reasonable.

        1. Fairness through force comes at the expense of justice.

          1. Sez you. The word justice means fairness, as I’ve indicated.

            1. The use of violence, coercion and fraud is an injustice.
              Yet violence, coercion and fraud are required to bring fairness through force.
              Thus fairness through force is injustice.

              1. This is only true if violence, fraud and coercion are injustices that trump all others or if you take a deontological view.

                Really this seems to me the essence of the divide between libertarians and what you guys call “statists”

                1. Justice is an absence of injustice.
                  There is no emotional quality to it. It is very cognitive. You know when something is unjust.
                  The purpose of government is to react to acts of injustice, not to commit them.

                  Fairness has an emotional component to it. You feel it when something is unfair.

                  Government has no business assuaging peoples’ feelings. That is when government becomes a tool of injustice.

                  1. “There is no emotional quality to it. It is very cognitive. You know when something is unjust.”

                    I think that is flatly wrong.

                    1. Say two people have two different incomes. That is just, but unfair. The person with the lesser income might feel bad about themselves about this. To rectify the situation they pass a law that says the guy with the higher income must pay money to the guy with the lower income… or else. That is coercion and unjust. The statist will argue that it is legal coercion, and that makes it OK. The libertarian will argue that coercion is coercion, no matter if the guy who does it is a common crook or a representative of the government.

                    2. “Say two people have two different incomes. That is just, but unfair.”

                      Hold on, it depends on whether even the liberal will see it as unjust or unfair. If one worked much harder for example I would not find it to be either.

                      Now, yes, there are situations where the liberal would see it as unjust and/or unfair that you would not, but we don’t see every situation of that as unfair…Where we do see it as unjust we may support some type of coercion to remedy it, but we see it the same way as blowing up the house to stop the spreading fire below, that is, if the unjust act leads to a more overall justness then it is not unjust…

                    3. What does it matter about who worked harder?
                      How do you judge that?

                      If I negotiate a better deal with my employer than you do, what business is that of yours?

                      What gives you or anyone else a right to employ coercion to “fix” the fact that I am better at negotiating with my employer than you are?

                    4. The same thing that lies behind what gives people the right to blow up the house to stop the spread of fire: the welfare of human beings. It’s OK to blow the house because it will save many humans from suffering (the loss of their homes or more). Likewise it may be OK to take from the good negotiator and spread it to the needy if* that kind of thing leads to less human suffering and better overall human welfare.

                      * I’m not saying it does btw, I should actually think in general it would not. My point is if it did then it would be OK.

                    5. I wasn’t even thinking of “welfare” and “suffering” regarding the fire.
                      I was thinking about protecting peoples’ property.

                      Suffering is the default human condition.

                      Liberty is the cure.

                    6. This is just you trying to privilige your notions about justice/fairness as knowledge and the notions of those you disagree with as feelings. I could just as easily make a reverse conclusory statement.

                    7. I don’t give a shit about your feeling MNG.
                      Not one bit. The only people whose feelings I care about are my family. That’s it.
                      Fuck you and everyone else. Not my problem.

                      That doesn’t mean I think it is OK for me to punch you in the face or steal your car.

                    8. Because you think or feel it is wrong to punch someone and you don’t think or feel it is wrong for someone to bask in wealth while people are needy. Don’t you understand though that people might disagree with you without their ideas being “feelings” and yours “knowledge?” How arrogant can you be?

                    9. I’m not arrogant, I’m heartless.

                      How arrogant are you to foist your feelings on me?

                      How arrogant are you that you feel you can initiate acts of violence because one person accumulated more wealth than another?

                    10. In jurisprudence, there is justice (outcomes resulting from the application of rules) and equity (outcomes that reflect fairness).

                      These were recognized as two separate standards. There actually used to be separate courts for them under English law.

                  2. “The purpose of government is to react to acts of injustice, not to commit them.”

                    The problem is, unless you are a deontologist, it’s hard to know whether the act is an injustice or not upfront.

                    Consider the case where the authorities blow up a house that is in a line of houses that has a fire moving down the line, in order to prevent the further spread of the house. Blowing up one’s house is usually an injustice, but in this case seems the right thing to do.

                    1. Most libertarians would agree that reacting to and preventing the spread of fire is a legitimate function of government.

                    2. Most libertarians would not agree that using force to blow up someone’s house when they don’t want it to is ok. You just will allow it because you think that while normally unjust it will lead to a greater injustice if not done. Don’t you realize liberals feel the same way about, say, using coercion to tax and use that money for the needy and such?

                    3. There is a big difference between a city being consumed by fire, and “the needy and such”.

                      Apples and oranges.

                      You want to help “the needy and such” contribute to a charity or a church.

                      Unless someone is committing an act of force to make that person to live in poverty, then it is not an injustice in need of government committing coercion.

                      It may not be fair, but it is not worthy of injustice.

                    4. Here’s the difference, MNG:

                      Libertarians will grudgingly assent to confiscation of private property if it is truly, provably necessary to avoid greater harm, and provided that the property owner is compensated for the loss.

                      Liberals enthusiastically advocate for confiscation of private property merely to redress grievances they have with how wealth is unevenly distributed through society. Moreover, if they give any thought at all to compensating the original property owner, they deploy bullshit arguments about how he derives second-order benefits from the redistribution of wealth and he should just vote with his feet if he doesn’t like it.

                    5. The logical conclusion of the quest for equality is the lowest common denominator.

                    6. Let me rephrase that: Liberals enthusiastically advocate for confiscation of private wealth merely if it MIGHT redress grievances they have with how wealth is unevenly distributed through society.

                      IOW: Libertarians might agree in principle to needs-based confiscation of private wealth given proof that it would, in fact, be effective in preventing greater harm. Liberals think nothing of confiscating private wealth despite a near-complete absence of proof that their beloved social programs accomplish anything of substance.

                    7. Re: MNG,

                      The problem is, unless you are a deontologist, it’s hard to know whether the act is an injustice or not upfront.

                      But if am one, then I won’t have to ask around “is this an injustice, pal?”

                      Right?

                      Otherwise, I would be epistemologically challenged, it would seem. I cannot know if an act is an injustice. Woe is me! Oh, and the rest of you better run for your lives: I can’t KNOW.

                      Consider the case where the authorities blow up a house that is in a line of houses that has a fire moving down the line, in order to prevent the further spread of the house. Blowing up one’s house is usually an injustice, but in this case seems the right thing to do.

                      I think you got it!!! It’s like killing all healthy people surrounding an epidemic area, to assure that the epidemic does not spread. Seems like an injustice, but in this case looks like the right thing to do.

                      Oh, by the way, your mistake was to give a value to the house, as if that mattered: it wasn’t YOURS.

            2. MNG: Ah, but what is fair?
              [fair] ?adjective
              1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
              2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.

              Kind of circular.

              For me, justice is getting what you deserve. What do you deserve? Largely to be left free to act like a responsible human being.

              1. This is a totally stupid argument.

                I’m inclined to actually side with MNG here. Procedural fairness is what we call “justice”. But you can abuse both words to mean whatever you want.

    2. Pregnancy being among the biggest culprits in the former group.

  15. Funny how those wacky Catholics come down on the side of liberty without even trying.

  16. I don’t need contraception!

  17. I guess it all comes down to this, would you as the insurer save more money with a plan that covers contraception than with one that does not? I assume that is the basis of the recommendation, that it’s the better bet, right?

    1. If there were hard actuarial data showing it saved insurers money, wouldn’t they already be doing it?

      1. “In any case, it turns out that most insurers already include contraception in their policies.”

        1. Right, so why the demand for a law? Funny how we just came full circle.

    2. Simple question, MNG. Why on Earth couldn’t individual insurance companies make that decision? If government bureaucrats THINK it sounds good, it must be? It is the job of government bureaucrats to determine if insurance companies are profitable?

      Let’s let the actual companies who are providing the insurance decide what is in their best interest. Why leave it to unelected and disinterested bureaucrats? Because of all the “stupid people” you wish to “protect”?

      1. Er, Marshall, I agree with you, that should be left up to the insurers imo. Didn’t you read my post @ 2:37?

        Take a breath.

  18. Not surprisingly, proponents of certain religious beliefs who think that God didn’t mean for people to use their intelligence to devise birth control methods objected to the recommendations.

    Not surprisingly, opponents of certain religious beliefs who think that God didn’t mean for people to use their intelligence to devise birth control methods advocate coercion in the insurance marketplace.

    1. Weren’t they recommendations Tulpa?

      1. Recommended at the point of a gun.

        Insurance companies can make the determination on their own. I think they pay specialized math guys just to crunch the numbers. And marketing pros to appeal to what customers want.

        1. “Recommended at the point of a gun.”

          Citation needed.

          1. Given the magnitude of change, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services charged the IOM with reviewing what preventive services are important to women’s health and well-being and then recommending which of these should be considered in the development of comprehensive guidelines.

            Don’t play stupid MNG.

            1. He isn’t playing.

            2. Recommendations to be considered in developing guidelines is a far cry from “at the point of a gun.”

              1. OK try “recommended if you want to legally offer a policy in our regulated insurance markets” So they could go insure something else.

    2. And in this case, the pro-God people are (slightly) more libertarian.

      Actually, in most cases, come to think of it (but slightly still applies).

      1. I’m God-neutral but I admire how pro-liberty the pro-God set can be at times. Sometimes it is intentional, sometimes not.They are essential to any hope of achieving a functional minarchy or stateless society.

        1. I think like all people they don’t want the government to mess with them in areas where they want to be free from intereference but do want to use government in areas where they would like to see things they don’t like interefered with.

          I do think it is hard to imagine religious bodies not being an integral part of any civil society that would replace government (or hell even if you have the government).

  19. Roughly 40 percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.

    Wow. I never knew straight people had so much unplanned sex. When I was married, my exwife gave me 7 days notice ahead of time.

    1. I’d be curious to know the standard they use for “intended” in arriving at that stat. I would imagine relatively few intercourse sessions occur with both participants having the express intention of conceiving a child. So in that sense nearly every pregnancy is unintended in the usual sense of the word.

      Of course that’s not what Bailey is referring to here, he’s referring to “unwanted” pregnancies (not that those are terribly well-defined either) but using the less-harsh-sounding “unintended” terminology to avoid giving away his hand.

      1. Also, the “unintended” terminology connotes that these pregnancies would not have happened had the copulators had access to proper birth control, when the reality is that unwanted pregnancies often happen because people are too lazy to bother with birth control or prefer the dermal aesthetics of going bareback.

      2. I don’t think you’re right about this, I think the 40% number really is “unintended,” as in, “we’re not specifically trying to get knocked up, but it happened.” Nowhere near enough pregnancies are terminated or kids given up for adoption for all of those to be “unwanted.” Fact is, if the pregnancy is unwanted, you can do something about it, whether you (Tulpa) like it or not. So I call BS on your redefinition of terms here unless you have a cite.

        1. I RTFA:
          In nearly every state, about 65% to 75% of unintended pregnancies were considered mistimed and 25% to 35% unwanted, according to Guttmacher, which studies reproductive issues.

          1. I’m not the one redefining terms. It’s simply not plausible that 60% of the kids born in the US were conceived as a result of intercourse where both future parents actually intended to conceive a kid while performing the act.

            And the details you give actually confirm my suspicion that they’re actually talking about unwanted pregnancies. A couple can have sex for reasons totally unrelated to reproduction, and still be happy about a pregnancy resulting. So clearly not all unintended pregnancies are unwanted or “mistimed” (apparently they only consider it unwanted if you never want a kid during your entire life? Which is another shady redefinition) and thus they’re not really talking about all unintended pregnancies.

        2. Many unwanted pregnancies are carried to term and raised by the parent(s). Some people don’t want to go through the emotional pain of giving a child up for adoption, and also willingly choose not to kill their offspring because they present an inconvenience. Maybe those people aren’t as courageous as you, but they do exist.

  20. “Not surprisingly, proponents of certain religious beliefs who think that God didn’t mean for people to use their intelligence to devise birth control methods objected to the recommendations.”

    What about those of us who are proponents of the religious belief that God intended us to use our intelligence to make purchasing decisions for ourselves, and not to have government decide for us?

    1. Number 2: There is no contradiction – some proponents of certain religious beliefs believe both: no birth control for anybody and no government decision that’s even neutral with regard to access to birth control.

      1. Looks like the squirrels ate your “some” in the original post.

  21. “Health Insurance Not Yet Expensive Enough, Say Experts”

    1. And don’t forget, once insurance becomes “unaffordable” it will have to be provided for by a benevolent government.

    2. As RB points out most companies already do this so I doubt it is as costly as you think…

      1. It’s the death of a thousand mandates. The states and the feds have been adding things like this since the ’70s, at least.

  22. Some DB on the radio the other day was bitching about how she couldn’t afford birth control and subsequently had a kid.

    How’s having that kid working out for your budget, you stupid DB.

  23. Just a speculation: Even if contraception coverage were not mandated, insurers might be very happy to include it in their policies considering the costs of covering child births (coverage of which is, of course, mandated).

    You mean… leave it to the market???

    Psha! What are you saying, sire? Leave things to self-interested individuals? Humbug! Balderdash and jaberwocky! People are too stupid to run things, which is why these same people are intelligent enough to vote in a government populated by veritable perfect beings, capable of economic calculation and efficient central planning!

  24. How about no more coverage mandates? If there’s enough of a market for an insurance policy that covers contraception in the co-pay, then let the market decide.

    I don’t want jacked-up premiums for more and more mandatory coverage items. When I quit my day job, I’ll be getting only a catastrophic health insurance coverage plan. I can afford to pay for the day to day details and it’s ridiculous to pay jacked up rates to cover things that aren’t emergencies. That’s not what insurance is supposed to be about.

  25. One of the controversial recommendations is that insurers should cover contraception, including emergency contraception, and that they should be available without co-payments.

    And since the good people at the Institute of Medicine are also managerial accounting experten… Well, Insurance companies should take heed! Totally ignoring costs, the business model, profit and loss…

    1. Shouldn’t you be irony and irony thy husband’s clothy?

  26. Maybe they should pay for abortions too…

  27. In progressive bizarro land, having the right to receive a service means that it should be provided for free, at someone else’s expense.

    1. It was only in the last few months that I realized most of them genuinely do not see the difference. It’s helped me to see why progressives and libertarians really do not see eye to eye on about any issue.

  28. Cue the libertarian outrage at the thought of society paying for female birth control. It’s much better to pay for the unwanted children via welfare and orphanages. Even though it’s more expensive that way, it’s better to pay more for the ideal of paying less.

    1. Re: Stephen,

      Cue the libertarian outrage at the thought of society paying for female birth control.

      Society does not pay. Only individuals pay.

      It’s much better to pay for the unwanted children via welfare and orphanages.

      If there are orphanages, is because people DO want them. And people do not pay welfare voluntarily, don’t be dishonest.

      1. OK, here’s some outrage for you, but its at the idea that someone should involuntarily pay for someone else’s lifestyle drugs (whether viagra or birth control).

    2. Once I am conditioned to accept that it is my lot to empty my wallet for the consequences of my neighbors lifestyle choices, then yes, I concede it is cheaper to buy a rubber than to pay for the bitch’s pre and post natal care once she gets her ass knocked up ’cause she couldn’t read a calendar.

      You win again, Tony. Now let’s see that endzone spike for freedom.

  29. A federal agency proposes a new health-insurance mandate, and that means . . . H&R denounces the *opponents* of the mandate:

    “Not surprisingly, proponents of certain religious beliefs who think that God didn’t mean for people to use their intelligence to devise birth control methods objected to the recommendations.”

    Yet, these “certain religious groups” are opposing a policy which Reason opposes, as well. But that doesn’t count because their motives are impure.

    It’s as if, when Rep. Barney Frank when he proposes liberalizing the MJ laws, Reason were to respond by saying: “Certain socialist fanatics, who think that getting more people high will make Marxiam more popular, have proposed…”

  30. Roughly 40 percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.

    Roughly 17% of all Russian roulette fatalities are unintended. What’s your point?

    1. If 83% are intended, those must be some pretty lucky suicides.

      1. Oops. You get the idea.

  31. Semantic note:

    Very few pregnancies are unintended, as they are nearly all the foreseeable result of activities voluntarily engaged in.

    40% are unwanted, but that’s not the same thing as unintended, not at all.

    Remember:

    Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

    If you do something, and a foreseeable result occurs, you don’t get off the hook by saying “But I didn’t want THAT to happen.”

    1. This.

      And of course much of the time, people are happy about pregnancies that resulted from sex that had no specific reproductive intent. I haven’t done, and do not want to do, the necessary research to confirm this, but I’m pretty sure my parents never intended to put a bun in the oven when I was conceived, but they had no problem with it as far as I know. (Some here at H&R might have a problem with their decision though)

  32. Re: MNG,

    The problem is, unless you are a deontologist, it’s hard to know whether the act is an injustice or not upfront.

    But if am one, then I won’t have to ask around “is this an injustice, pal?”

    Right?

    Otherwise, I would be epistemologically challenged, it would seem. I cannot know if an act is an injustice. Woe is me! Oh, and the rest of you better run for your lives: I can’t KNOW.

    Consider the case where the authorities blow up a house that is in a line of houses that has a fire moving down the line, in order to prevent the further spread of the house. Blowing up one’s house is usually an injustice, but in this case seems the right thing to do.

    I think you got it!!! It’s like killing all healthy people surrounding an epidemic area, to assure that the epidemic does not spread. Seems like an injustice, but in this case looks like the right thing to do.

    Oh, by the way, your mistake was to give a value to the house, as if that mattered: it wasn’t YOURS.

  33. Roughly 40 percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.

    Yeah, right – that’s what the parents will say after the little tikes start going bratty on them.

    “You know, I could’ve received free contraceptives from bleeding heart larcenists!” [OM: that’s lefties]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.