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: Wharf Rat who wrote (24129)	8/20/2012 1:19:27 AM
From: gamesmistress	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

If insurers chose to go that route that would be their prerogative. In my experience, copays are on a sliding scale anyway - the older the drug, the cheaper the copay. If there were no copays at all? The costs would get shifted elsewhere and the consumer would pay elsewhere. Possibly fewer new drugs would be created.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (24129)	8/20/2012 8:35:21 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 85487

It's cheaper for them than paying for pregnancy and labor and delivery. Obviously for the individual case where someone gets pregnant. And even for people in general using birth control, as opposed to not using it, and many of them getting pregnant. But not so much paying for people in general when most of them would pay for themselves if there was no coverage. Since the controversy is about employer based coverage, all of these people have jobs, most of them, probably almost all of them, who want birth control would get it anyway.