Corporate Welfare with a bedroom twist…

Can’t get enough free meds for the bedroom?  The Health and Human Services Dept is mandating that all insurances and employers provide entirely free contraceptives to their employees (and families).

While some are crying that this is a violation of the First Amendment (which it is), there are other serious issues involved that the Daily Beast is uncovering.

This becomes a giant boon for the Pharmaceutical companies.  HHS did not require generics, but whatever the patient desires in regards to contraceptives.  Suddenly, there will be millions more people getting free brand name meds from the Pharmas.  Since there is no co-pay or deductible (HHS mandate), the money is passed directly through the insurance company to the Pharmas, and of course, paid for by taxpayers. IOW, there will be no one screaming that their meds are too expensive, since they are “free!”

This is what Texas governor Perry did with Gardasil, ensuring the $360 injections were given to all young girls in Texas.  It was a boon to Merck.  For this reason, the Pharmas have promoted Obamacare, to the tune of $600+ million in lobbying.

Can you figure out who the Pharmas supported in the past election between Obama and McCain, and will do again this election year?

Can you say this is a serious, serious danger to have companies bribing politicians in order to get billions in mandated kickbacks and returns?

Can we see how the prophets Isaiah and Nephi warned us about the rich taking from the poor, and making themselves richer? Can we see how some Gadianton Robbers enriched themselves by working inside the government, where the wicked rich (not all rich are wicked) sought gain and were obliged by the bribed in government?  Guess what? We’re here again.  The Book of Helaman can explain a lot of this stuff.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/02/peter-schweizer-big-pharma-s-role-in-the-contraception-debate.html

7 thoughts on “Corporate Welfare with a bedroom twist…

  1. Rame, all good points to consider. Other points to think about:

    –Health insurance companies are not going to swallow the cost of “free contraceptives.” They will pass the cost on by raising premiums in other areas. So, this idea that this will suddenly be “free” is nonsensical. Other people will pay for it because co-pays will increase or deductibles will increase.
    –As companies see their insurance costs increase, they will be more likely NOT to hire young women who need birth control. There will be no overt discrimination, but some companies will quietly discourage hiring young woman because of costs. So, the people most hurt by this policy will be the people the government is supposedly trying to help.
    –When something is subsidized, costs increase. So today there are women who don’t go on the pill because they may not be that sexually active and may be willing to use other, less expensive birth control (or no birth control at all). If the pill is “free,” more people who wouldn’t get the pill otherwise will start using it. As you point out, it is the big pharmas who most benefit from this. But this will also mean higher health care costs as health insurance companies spend more and more money providing “free” birth control to new users.

    Bottom line: the scariest words in the world truly are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

  2. Don’t be so sure that the contraception mandate is unconstitutional. I would refer you to the U.S Supreme Court Case of U.S v. Lee 455 U.S 252 (1982). The Supreme Court in a unanimous decsions by that left wing secularist judge Warren Burger held that an Amish man who owned a small business and hired other Amish in the business must pay social security taxes despite his sincere religous objections. For the Amish taking care of one’s own without government help is just as important a religous princple as not using contraceptions is to the traditionalist catholic, or practicing polygamy was to our 19th century mormon ancestors.

    FYI— the attorney who sucessfully argued the government case was another left wing secular socailist attorney, Rex Lee who latter became president of B.Y.U.

  3. And, just in time:

    “By far the biggest return on investment would come from expanding access to family planning through Medicaid, something made possibly through the 2010 Affordable Care Act. A $235 million investment there would lower taxpayer costs of $1.32 billion by preventing unintended pregnancies.”

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/03/06/148042609/how-birth-control-saves-taxpayers-money

    Increase usage of birth control and you decrease unwanted pregnancies. Decrease unwanted pregnancies, and all sorts of costs in other areas are decreased. Crime rates and poverty rates would go down. Abortion rates would go down! A relatively small cost up front to significantly decrease additional costs down the road.

  4. I will be very surprised to find that this actually saves taxpayers money. Birth control is not easy to use for people who are already casual about the consequences of sex, and it has side effects on women which are rarely if ever discussed.

    Nevertheless, we will continue to spend obscene amounts of money to solve a problem which is easily solved with an application of common sense and morality.

    But to most people, I fear those seem more costly.

  5. I thought that we had already discussed the extra corruption from the government controlling a large portion of the economy with Obamacare? I think this is being raised now because the lawsuits against at least part of Obamacare are likely to be successful. What can they do to show how good it could be? Get young women and bid pharma in your camp like this, and anger the religious right. The law gets overturned later this year and you have big donors lined up and a cadre of motivated voters who have lost their right to a handout. The right is slightly less motivated because the Supreme Court has stopped some of your bad policies.

  6. Tim, #3, one of the differences between a conservative and a progressive is that the latter looks only at the end and never considers the possible ramifications of accepting the means. What happens, once this precedent is set, when the other party comes to power and uses the same argument to force something that violates your political sensibilities?

  7. If we’re going to be “progressives”, just where should we stop? If free contraceptives is good, then free houses and cars will be great! We could subsidize high quality houses – nothing under $250K per person. Of course, when everyone is given a “free” Chevy Volt, it will suddenly go from selling only 10,000 units a year to several million! Imagine all the people who will get jobs just to assemble those cars and build those houses!

    Why, in spending such ungodly sums of money, we should be able to pay off our $16 Trillion debt in no time at all!

    Oh, was my neon sarcasm sign turned off? Well, if so, it’s because I can’t afford to keep it lit anymore, because I’m buying some highfalutin college girl her contraceptives….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>