The Audacity of Dupe

The Audacity of Dupe

25
SHARE

Let me get this straight. Catholic institutions won’t have to pay for contraception coverage in their health insurance? Instead, their health insurers will provide it for free? Did I hear that right?

The President seems to have found the long elusive free lunch. If he has, hand him his Nobel Prize in Economics now; no economist will ever top that. (That would make him just the fifth person to win two Nobel Prizes. Such greatness inspires.) I am afraid that the Nobel Prize committee will have more work to do, as the free lunch will remain as scarce as the unicorn. Just bear in mind that health insurers charge different prices for all of their clients. How is anyone to know whether they are providing contraception to some Catholic institution for free? Will we have a federal agency auditing whether an insurer’s 6.743 percent price increase should have been 6.682 percent? And is this new rule even Constitutional? Since when can the government force private businesses to give away their products? I guess a government that believes it can mandate that consumers purchase contraception coverage regardless of the price also believes that it can mandate insurers set the price for contraception coverage to zero.

And suppose insurers really do provide contraception for free to Catholic institutions, but not for any others. This gives the Catholic institutions a competitive advantage in labor markets. Mr. President, may I suggest that as long as you are giving away stuff to employees at Catholic institutions, why not force Apple to give away iPads to Northwestern University employees? (Most of them voted for you and surely deserve it!) Apparently all it takes is an executive order. What did Mel Brooks say about this? Oh yeah, “It’s good to be the king.”

I don’t believe there will be free contraceptive coverage, any more than I believe in free lunches. But Catholic institutions seem to believe it, with many expressing their support for the President’s initiative. This is more than just a leap of faith. This is insanity.

Of course the media are lauding the President for his “compromise.” Well Mr. President, you seem to be getting away with this one. You have duped everyone. Well, almost everyone.

David Dranove, PhD, is the Walter McNerney Distinguished Professor of Health Industry Management at Northwestern University’s Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where he is also Professor of Management and Strategy and Director of the Health Enterprise Management Program. He has published over 80 research articles and book chapters and written five books, including “The Economic Evolution of American Healthcare and Code Red.” This post first appeared at Code Red.

Leave a Reply

25 Comments on "The Audacity of Dupe"


Guest
Feb 10, 2012

“Opponents of insurance coverage for birth control have two central arguments. One, the rise in premiums that would ensue if insurers covered all common forms of contraceptives is simply not worth the $30-per-month average cost of most birth control. Secondly, some insurers argue that pregnancy is not a medical condition, whereas erectile dysfunction is. Thus, coverage is justified in the one case but not the other.”

http://www.healthinsurancerates.com/56-birth-control-and-health-insurance.html
__

Avg cost of a 30 tablet supply of the 2 major male “ED” drugs, ~ $660.

Guest
DeterminedMD
Feb 10, 2012

What a joke, he talks of allowing choice when this bs legislation is nothing about choice. Choice by Obama: submit or die!

Guest
Feb 11, 2012

Wow. I’ve seen comments threads deteriorate before but rarely this fast…

~~~~~~~~~~~

Regarding the post, the arithmetic seems pretty straightforward. From the cost/benefit standpoint it’s less expensive to prevent pregnancy than deliver babies. (Same reasoning as clean needle exchanges for drug users to help prevent the spread of AIDs.)

There was a time when STD (they used to call it VD) was a court martial offense for soldiers. Old vets know about middle of the night “short arm inspections” because nobody wanted to face a court-martial. And venereal disease was rampant.

When the policy was changed to treat STDs as medical problems the problem became more manageable.

Like getting pregnant, STDs have not gone away, but they are less expensive to manage when policies face the reality that they are medical issues, not rebellious disciplinary behavior or sins.

As to insurance companies charging different rates for different groups and individuals, I hear they are in the business of making money. They can and will charge whatever the market will bear. If I see a rash of insurance companies facing bankruptcy I’ll start to worry. Til then, I’m more interested as a citizen and tax payer to do everything possible to bring down the costs of medical care. And contraception is on the list.

Guest
MD as HELL
Feb 11, 2012

A Catholic employer cannot do business with an insurer that provides service that is against the doctrines of the church. “Plausible deniability” does not work with God. Accounting tricks do not keep and respect freedom of religion.

Time for a faith-based impeachment movement?

Guest
SJ Motew, MD
Feb 11, 2012

“Dupe” is perfect description. Nothing more than an insurance mandate, this will be paid for by all regardless of affiliation. The political slippery slope is frightening; what about Jehovah’s Witnesses paying for blood, or Catholic’s paying for employees who wish to withdraw life-sustaining care?

Am also curious what back room deal was made with insurers for this?

Guest
kim
Feb 11, 2012

I made similar comments to Robert Laszewski’s post, but I’m amazed that the Administration fails to realize that (a) many of these plans will be self-funded, so there will be no “insurer” and no maternity savings to an insurer from which to pay for the contraception coverage, and that (b) the Hawaii model fails because for decades Hawaii has had an ERISA exemption that effectively means no such self-funded plans. They are not doing their homework.

More comments on the topic at my blog: http://mcolblog.squarespace.com/kcblog/2012/2/9/just-say-no.html

Guest
Tweeder
Feb 11, 2012

So, has BobbyG gotten banned?

Guest
Feb 11, 2012

WWJD?
Render unto Caesar.
JMO

Guest
DeterminedMD
Feb 11, 2012

Did I miss something here? My above comment was directed solely at the current occupant of the White House, no one else.

Believe me when I say/write this, if I have issue with a commenter here, it will be direct and to the point.

Guest
Feb 12, 2012

“I don’t believe there will be free contraceptive coverage, any more than I believe in free lunches. But Catholic institutions seem to believe it, with many expressing their support for the President’s initiative.”
__

That lasted all of 2 days.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/02/obama-catholic-bishops-contaception-abortion/1

Guest
Maggie Mahar
Feb 12, 2012

I agree with John Ballard.

A few people are responsible for turning THCB threads into something that most of us don’t bother reading–or responding to.

Guest
Feb 12, 2012

Thanks, Maggie.
(And they keep coming…)
But when a post title is a snarky play on a book title what else can be expected? References to free lunches, unicorns and swipes at the Nobel Committee are not calculated to spread oil on any water. The post seems calculated to provoke controversy.

Matthew, you getting this?
Your moderator is doing a great job but is caught in a net not of her making.

Guest
Feb 12, 2012

I vote for actual moderation.

Guest
Feb 12, 2012

In the proactive blog comment policy sense. The former will take care of the latter, lexical sense.

Guest
DeterminedMD
Feb 12, 2012

I think this site is not about pure partisan posts, and we know who are the usual players, even if the authors themselves did not submit the post on their own here. Maybe it is time for sites like this that are about Health Care issues to post opinions and columns that are asking for honest and fair debate, not just fostering ulterior motives, like getting PPACA moved forward and then finally learning about travesties like the contraceptive matter this week.

You want transparency and complete accountability, and then readers are exposed to political party manipulations and defense of extreme, rigid, inflexible views that history shows only divides and disrupts. Maybe this site could put a mission statement under the banner at the top so readers coming on will know what they are getting into before committing to posts and threads as we have all read these past couple of years.

PPACA is not a black and white legislation, it was yet another partisan effort to favor the few and screw the many. Just like Bush and the Republicans did with the Iraq War. My repeated question is this, why do the majority average, moderate citizens have to put up with the extremist rhetoric that truly divides and conquers? Don’t expect the usual suspects here to provide honest, transparent debate to look for solutions!!!

Guest
SJ Motew, MD
Feb 12, 2012

Blog ‘etiquette’ considers that posts should remain on topic to the original posting or article rather than oblique comments that have been appropirately dealt with. I have full faith that the editor’s can handle these.

I am most interested in responses to Professor Dranove’s considerations.