Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (9503)	2/16/2012 6:53:19 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 85487

They are free when you factor in the cost to the insurer of providing for the care of a pregnant mother, the birth of the child and all the cost associated with a new born child to the insurer. Maybe, maybe not. The cost for the child would be under a more expensive family policy, but still might be a net loss to the insurer, even with higher premiums. The birth itself, esp. with complications, would be a clear net loss to the insurer. But you would have to pay for a huge amount of contraception for each birth prevented. Most people who want to use contraception would do so anyway. Maybe you pay for contraception for an extra 50,000 people for each birth you prevent per year. Also if it was such a clear gain for the the insurance company, than they would just pay for it anyway, without any contractual, legal, or regulatory requirement.