Most people, including me, think mandated coverage of contraception was a result of the Affordable Care Act and the Institute of Medicine that is charged with making recommendations related to preventive services that should be covered at 100% by health insurance.
Recently, I found a copy of the website my.Barackobama.com dated November 3, 2008.
Here is what it says:
Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improved awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.
So you see, the full and “free” coverage of contraception was a long-planned goal and likely had little to do with the IOM recommendation, but more with an ideology that it is the federal government’s responsibility to solve just about any problem American’s face. Here we also see the claim of “insurance discrimination,” key rhetoric in promoting the idea that virtually every health care related expense should be covered and with minimal or no cost.
Once the Affordable Care Act was passed including discretion for the Secretary of HHS to designate preventive services, there was no need for separate legislation.
The President’s perspective may also have something to do with the fact that 72% of black American children are born to unwed mothers and many of those to teenagers. That indeed is a problem for the individuals involved and for society. It is a social crisis, a moral crisis and one that will not be solved by making the pill “free” especially given that many of the people involved already have access to contraception at minimal or no cost.
Related articles
- The “Pill” and the HHS contraception mandate have become a (political) football and a symbol of what is wrong with our thinking about health care expenses (quinnscommentary.com)
- The law [Affordable Care Act] doesn’t require anyone to take birth control. It only compels doctors to prescribe it to those who ask…ha! (quinnscommentary.com)
- Why birth control is affordable and coverage at 100% does increase costs (quinnscommentary.com)
- Your employer based health care benefits are going to change. Intentional or not the Affordable Care Act will change your benefits (quinnscommentary.com)
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Dick, frankly, if this is a societal issue we are trying to solve, the number of unwed, unplanned pregnancies and births, where contraception has the potential for contraception to reduce not only those births but to avoid the moral challenges of abortion, why in the world don’t we provide it as part of a public service – as you and I experienced long ago when it came to polio vaccine? Why not fund it by prospectively redirect all taxpayer support to this preventive effort and away from dealing with the increasing number who fail to take preventive measures and land themselves and a new baby in welfare/medicaid? This was one of the very, very few times I agreed with President Clinton, when he discussed his strategy for abortion (and he should have also applied it to unwed, unwanted pregnancies) – the President said that “abortion should be safe, legal and rare.”.
Had President Obama included that in health reform, “to make unwed, unwanted pregnancies and abortions safe, legal and rare”, who could/would complain – he acknowledges the societal issue and takes steps to prevent the challenge, and reinforces it with limitations on those who would otherwise rely on taxpayers/government programs.
LikeLike
It seems to me that classifying this as a societal rather than individual moral and personal responsibility issue is a bit of a copout. Yes, there are impacts on society, but so are there for drug use. This seems to argue for making all illegal drugs legal and paying for them as well thereby avoiding crime related to drugs.
The issue from my point of view is not the coverage, but the fact it needs to be “free” It should be treated no differently than other health care.
In addition, the lowest income people with the greatest social impact have access to free contraceptives in nearly all states. Are we saying irresponsible behavior is okay as long as society provides free abortions to take care of such behavior and to limit our costs?
The vast, vast majority of working women and spouses can pay for contraception especially co-pays with a minor adjustment in their spending priorities … Like buying lottery tickets where low income people spend on average over $500 per year.
Dick
Richard D Quinn Editor
Visit these blogs:
Quinnscommentary.com
Health Insurance Illuminated http://blog.horizonblue.com/
LikeLike