The system of health care in America is a mess, and we can ascribe most of the blame on the government. In short, we have the power and the efficiency of markets, such as Medicaid, Medicare, tax code distortions and other forms of regulation and intervention, we have a system that is paralyzed by a crisis of the third charge created.
There is no logical reason to expect that consumers are smart shoppers, after all, if they are required to pay only 11 cents for every $ 1 of care they consume. And providers have little incentive to be efficient if they know that consumers are not very price sensitive.
Now let these ideas to the political controversy over birth control. Only, as I explained in July, there is no fighting in the birth control. As far as I know, no one who is trying to ban contraception.
The real battle is whether the government require health insurance include coverage of contraception (and some abortion).
Writing for Bloomberg, Megan McArdle explains that the contraceptive mandate Obamacare is stupid because a modest cost, the routine should not be covered by insurance at all.
I'm not very patient with the political struggles over contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act health. Generic pill ... are not normal spending overpriced is used by millions of people, exactly the kind of things that insurance is not designed for. All around this cost a little spread, while your policy administration costs.
In addition, the best policy for birth control to allow without a prescription.
In other words, the problem of reducing the State Regulation and not imposing a mandate!
Have the pill ... over-the-counter and not available as an element of the recipe. It's a great idea. It was a great idea existed before Obamacare and will continue to be a good politician, even if ObamaCare somehow disappears in the dust. Physicians assess the risk of you birth control, simple questions you can ask yourself: Are you over 35 years old, smoker and concerned about family history of stroke in the beginning?
Seems like a good idea, right? Especially on Republicans who want less regulation and also appeal to Democrats, allowing easier access to contraception want to address.
Republicans are on board, according to Byron York.
The GOP has ever, to make a new policy ... answer ... The idea without prescription birth control pills without a prescription 07.24. It has become a trend among the Republican candidates in Senate races across the country. In North Carolina, Republican Party candidate Thom Tillis recently adopted. So Ed Gillespie Virginia has. Mike McFadden Minnesota. Gardner, Colorado. And one of the main proponents of the initiative is a candidate for president in 2016, prospective Republican Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Gardner ... first made the proposal in an op Denver Post in June. The pill was safe since it was adopted 44 years ago, Gardner argued. "If other drugs have this type of panel to approve the purchase without a prescription," he wrote. "Brand medications such as Advil, Pepcid, Claritin, Prilosec, and many others, once sold recipe, but moved to Over-the-counter sales once it had proven to be safe and not likely to be victims of violence."
But some Democrats are hostile.
In fact, a columnist for the Denver Post is very angry that some GOPers support access over-the-counter pill.
Modeled after the Colorado Senate candidate Cory Gardner Americans are a handful of Republicans in the midterm races across the country now accepting over-the-counter pill without a prescription. Do not be fooled. It is a dishonest act which might be the most expensive pill for women actually ... But women already pay for these pills as part of the coverage of health care is purchased by employers. Why should we pay twice? What's going on ... However, if the pill is available without a prescription? Insurance companies are likely to cover stop. This means that women continue to pay health insurance premiums and additional costs for the pills out of pocket. And ... the freedom to discuss the risks of physician visits for birth control could also by paying pharmacy consulting to determine whether women risk factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, or pain be replaced preventing migraine pill safe use, reports the American College of Obstetricians and gynecologists. Actually it is not a "cheaper and easier" alternative -. "Mostly wrong" why PolitiFact evaluates the application of Gardner
I strongly suspect that the author wanted to make a partisan attack on the Republican Senate candidate in Colorado. After all, the most important and most difficult of the left, including humans and Vox Think Progress, promoting access over-the-counter birth control.
But suppose he really believes what she wrote. In this case, F would be obtained for all economics professors, because insurance companies are obviously the cost price of their policy. So, when the mandate expires, and birth control is available without a prescription, insurance companies can reduce the cost of policies sold.
In other words, women would not pay twice. In fact, they pay less, but it is clear that those that health plans by the employer to understand, are part of the total compensation of employees.
There is another reason, other than partisanship, birth control sold over the counter to allow some on the left to oppose Republican proposals. And you will not be surprised to learn that self-interest plays his role.
On behalf of the federal, Ben noticed that Domenech Planned Parenthood wants the current approach only hold prescription.
You may think that Ben has made a big mistake, or I misunderstood. Finally, is not that contrary to the stated mission of the organization to reduce unwanted pregnancies?
Now, noting that Ben Planned Parenthood may be more interested in maximizing the documents in reducing pregnancies.
Interestingly ... Planned Parenthood pushes over-the-counter contraception. Why is that? Why Planned Parenthood, the availability of contraceptives and women who must consult a doctor for slimming? That sounds terribly patronizing them. Birth Control ... is an important lead generator for family planning, where they can not afford their existing target as a source of prescription birth control without damage to lose its status as an institution. Well ... you can understand why they do not want potential customers to have the freedom to CVS or Walgreens or Rite Aid instead of going to family planning - the people and other services worth much money the taxpayers $ 540 million in fiscal year 2012 alone. And if you do not offer these services, you can not charge the taxpayers for it. So ... you want to keep the government in control of ban-the-counter birth intact.
Here is a picture of Ben article Showing "what percentage of Planned Parenthood" services "are related to prevention." As he emphasizes, "is more than a third of the company."
So I guess that makes sense - at least amoral perspective - the organization wants to restrict access to over-the-counter birth control.
In addition, the GOP plans to improve access to birth control is not a step into uncharted territory.
Here is a map from a group for a reform of the extreme left, which shows that over-the-counter birth control pills are for the most women in the world.
Closed share a last - part of the information from experts in the law - and very convincing.
Women already have access to includes the found counter Plan B, the high doses of hormones in the pill.
... The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was considering oral contraceptives over-the-counter (OTC) for over twenty years. "Plan B" emergency contraception over the counter was last year. This is a step pill is just a stronger dose of the same hormones that make the pill regularly. There is no good medical reason for the differentiation. But in the United States, regularly the pill remain stubbornly behind the pharmacy counter and delay.
In other words, the usual argument of the Regulation that the conditions are necessary, because consumers can not be trusted to make their own decisions with high doses of drugs.
But the government has already done the-counter Plan B in blocking similar access to birth control pills. Go figure.
PS Planned Parenthood is not the only interest group that was so shameful and embarrassing.
PPS If you want to know what happens with health care in the absence of the ubiquitous third-party payer would like to see this remarkable image.
PPPS Since this topic was the birth control, we will be the opportunity to take our collection of Sandra Fluke Browse mood. Just in case you do not remember, I was a student 30 years old, who got his 15 minutes of fame with the demand that others pay for their expenses. Anyway, if you want to laugh, check this great video the reason this funny cartoon, and four other jokes Here.
PPPPS In a separate question, I have to replace my two cents late last year at a debate in libertarian circles, when the fullness of the American welfare programs should be by a grant from "basic income" that would be given to all Americans. To guarantee a minimum income type.
I realized that the current system is a mess, but I suggested that decentralization was a better approach.
It seems ... that there is nothing worse than the current system. But ... what is to denigrate what we have today, and instead give each a kind of basic income? I agree ... but only in a certain way. I like the idea of radical reform, but I think there is a better way to Rome. It's called federalism.
But if someone on the head and said a gun: federalism was not an option and demanded that I choose between the "basic income" and the status quo?
There is no reason obvious answer, but I guess I prefer the devil, because I know of fears that could more redistribution and more government.
And I'm not the only one with this opinion. Here is what the proponents of more redistribution wrote about the concept.
Basic income, unlike the programs that we have now, are politically easy to grow once it is in place. If ... a large redistribution program you have, at a high level, you can overcome enough public support opposition concentrated rich who pay the bills. ... Thanks to the support of basic income, libertarians are walking into a trap. Great fear of the anti-redistribution has always been that the masses, easy to use the power of majority rule voting more money for themselves. As it stands, makes the fragmentation of our redistributive programs it easier for anti-redistribution to drill holes in the safety net. If the system were fragmented replaced by a large universal program, the result would be a huge gift redistribution be a politician.
But maybe I'm just a pessimist. Tyler Cowen has a different perspective.
Say ... an accident of history, to extend basic income supporters in power for a term and passage of this legislation. Over time, these income transfers would be larger, more visible, and would be at least at first glance contrary to workers than the public stomach for it. My prediction is that it will limit along a number of possible dimensions, starting with the job requirements (in part) for people without disabilities. Under the most plausible at the level of basic income hypothesis, most people would not even expect to enjoy, be a net beneficiary potential program. So ... I think that intuition: "Why send money to people who do not work?" They displace the "I want me as someone who helps others, that" feeling.
I guess it depends how the "basic income" was developed depends. If the government sends checks for all (as some think), then "plausible hypothesis" Tyler on the receiver would be a mistake.
This reinforces in my mind that my idea was good. Come and learn federalism Washington on issues of redistribution.
The decentralized approach has been very successful in Switzerland and is the system that corresponds to the constitution.