Skip to main content

View Diary: Americans strongly oppose employer beliefs restricting insurance coverage. (99 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yeah, and it's a savings that happens pretty (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassandra Waites, TerryDarc, IreGyre

    quickly, unlike some other preventive care screenings, etc. which pay off only after years and years.
    Women of childbearing age will be more likely to get contraceptives without co-pays and will be less likely to get pregnant and need expensive care.
    Anyone who's ever looked at medical costs knows that one of the highest costs is in the first year of life, particularly for those infants born premature or with serious problems. Every pregnancy like that prevented saves enormous amounts of money (last time I looked, it was an average of $40,000 or more for labor/delivery and subsequent hospitalization for a premature infant, but that was a while ago -- it's probably far higher by now).
    And there's fairly good evidence (don't have the cite but as a researcher in this area I read the article several years ago) that increasing length of time after a miscarriage or other adverse birth outcome before getting pregnant, reduces the likelihood of repeated adverse birth outcomes.
    So birth control is good for women, good for babies, and really good for the bottom line of the insurance companies.

    We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

    by Tamar on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:38:16 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site