I think I know the answer to Cole's question:
"One of the things I don’t understand about the whole McCain contraception/viagra thing this week is why insurance agencies wouldn’t want to provide coverage for birth control.
"Pregnancy costs lots of money and medical care, and that is if there are no complications. Babies cost money. Not only does pregnancy and the ensuing birth cost money, as every insurance policy I have been part of would offer coverage to dependents, doesn’t that mean the insurance company is also on the hook for the next 18 years? Not only do they have to pay for the pregnancy and the birth, but then they also get to eat every single health care cost for a child. Every e-room visit because they wrecked their bike and broke their arm. Every doctor’s visit for strep throat. And so on.
"So putting aside all the other issues (should government tell companies what they can cover, etc.), what I don’t understand is why WOULDN’T an insurance company want to provide birth control. From where I am sitting, it looks a helluva lot cheaper. Adding to that, why WOULD they want to provide coverage for viagra, as that will possibly lead to… more expensive babies.
Could someone break this down for me- is this just something in the actuarial modeling that I do not know, and that it is cheaper to deny birth control than it is to take the chance on paying for pregnancies? Or is it really just as simple as there would be a boomer riot if they had to pay for Viagra, but there is no such comparable pressure from people who would use birth control?"
Here was my comment:
Simple answer. They want women to have children, and are willing to pay the cost for the kid, because eventually...that kid grows up to get health insurance so the company can eventually screw them out of their money and the wheels on the bus go round and round.
Also this explains why they cover the V-pill--more kids.
Later on I'll be solving that middle east problem.