A "Free Drunk" Pill

[dgs49]

Imagine if you will, that some pharmaceutical company has developed a drug that completely counteracts the negative aspects of drunkenness. Specifically, there is never any nausea or dizziness, no hangover, and driving impairment is completely eliminated. Any liver or other medical damage is completely eliminated. Like magic.

To summarize, you get the euphoria of drunkenness, but none of the negative side effects.

In order to get the full effects, you have to take a pill once a day, every day, and the aggregate cost of the pills for someone who feels the need would be about a thousand dollars a year. But people who do not drink constantly feel they should also be taking the pill, in case an occasion arises when getting drunk seems like a good idea.

Now imagine that Brigham Young University provides a low-cost health insurance plan for its students, and federal regulators are looking into what kinds of coverage are appropriate for this insurance. Since Brigham Young University – an instrumentality of the LDS church – is morally opposed to the consumption of alcohol (although it does not enforce a prohibition of alcohol consumption), they are opposed to covering this Wunderdrug under the compulsory insurance policy. In effect, the University would be forced to subsidize conduct by students that the University finds immoral and abhorrent.

Students at the University stage a protest, demanding that this drug be covered under the insurance program. Without the coverage, it is said, the students will be subject to sickness, vomiting, deadly car accidents, long-term medical complications, and who know what else – it being a given that they will all be drinking heavily from time to time throughout their college years. Having to pay for the drug themselves could cost as much as $4,000 during the course of a typical college tenure.

Glen Beck, a notorious Mormon, refers to the protesters on his radio program as, “drunks,” “retards,” and “reprobates,” claiming that they want the government (or other ratepayers) to pay for their promiscuous and irresponsible lifestyle.

Is he right?

Is this coverage appropriate for a compulsory insurance program?

Is there any truth to the assertion that by covering this drug, the taxpayers and ratepayers are being forced to subsidize an immoral course of conduct?

Should BYU get a “conscience” exemption from this requirement?

[dales]

[Scooter]

It's actually pretty easy. Any prescription drug is, by definition, deemed medically necessary by the prescribing physician, and any medically necessary good or service should be covered by any insurance plan. Therefore no exemption should be granted.

Any more questions?

[Jarlaxle]

It's actually pretty easy. Any prescription drug is, by definition, deemed medically necessary by the prescribing physician, and any medically necessary good or service should be covered by any insurance plan. Therefore no exemption should be granted.

Any more questions?

If that isn't the biggest pile of nonsense i have read this week...it's damn close.

[Scooter]

And what part is "nonsense", exactly, and why?

[rubato]

Most stupid analogy this year!

equating sex with drunkenness.

WOW


yrs,
rubato

[Jarlaxle]

And what part is "nonsense", exactly, and why?

Think hard. I promise it will not hurt.

[Sean]

Be fair Jarl, if you disagree with the post at least quantify your opinion.

[BoSoxGal]

Pregnancy is a medical condition, putting women at significant risk for serious health complications, up to and including death.

Ergo, avoidance of pregnancy is a medical issue. Period.

No pun intended.


Finally, until MDs and DOs are required to ask men for a marriage license before prescribing Viagra, which insurance DOES cover - well, STFU about the Pill!

[Lord Jim]

Come to think of it, if they were giving out free pills that would completely remove the effects of alcohol after a night of heavy carousing, there might be less need for birth control....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Most stupid analogy this year! equating sex with drunkenness.
WOW
yrs,
rubato

Well there was a time when it was the only way I could get any.

[Gob]

How drunk did you have to get?

"You wake up in the morning, and find you've taken advantage of yourself again..."
Tom Waits.

[MajGenl.Meade]

One stiff one usually was enough....

[dgs49]

"Pregnancy is a medical condition, putting women at significant risk for serious health complications, up to and including death. Ergo, avoidance of pregnancy is a medical issue."

Drunkenness is a medically cognizable condition, evidenced by blood chemistry and characterized by dizziness, euphoria, reduction in sensual acuity, reduction in reaction time, impairment of judgment, etc. It often results in accidents resulting in property damage, serious injury and/or death. Long term, it can result in heart and lung problems, liver failure, breakdown of social structures (marriage, family, friendships), etc.

Both pregnancy and drunkenness are caused by activity that is entirely voluntary, and never necessary. In both cases, (pregnancy and drunkenness), the behavior is - and has been forever - considered to be immoral by the vast majority of the population: drinking to excess in one case and promiscuous sex in the other (we are talking about unmarried college students).

In both cases, it is suggested that "someone else" (either the Government or other insurance ratepayers) pay for a protective measure that (1) is not necessary if behavior is modified to conform to societal norms, (2) is fairly expensive, and (3) is not appropriate, generally, for an indemnity contract.

So, BSG, what's your problem with the analogy?

"Any prescription drug is, by definition, deemed medically necessary by the prescribing physician, and any medically necessary good or service should be covered by any insurance plan. Therefore no exemption should be granted."

I'm pretty much in agreement with Jaraxle on this one. It is about the most ridiculous thing that has ever been posted here.

It demonstrates such a profound ignorance of the nature and purpose of insurance that one is almost rendered speechless. I suppose it is excusable coming from a Canadian, but barely so.

[Sean]

Ah! So only promiscuity can lead to pregnancy.

It all makes sense now...

[BoSoxGal]

Rape is not voluntary, dgs. Are you familiar with the widely accepted DOJ statistics on rape in the US? Incest is not voluntary in the vast majority of cases, either.

Take your head out of your ass.

[Scooter]

Any prescription drug is, by definition, deemed medically necessary by the prescribing physician, and any medically necessary good or service should be covered by any insurance plan. Therefore no exemption should be granted."

I'm pretty much in agreement with Jaraxle on this one. It is about the most ridiculous thing that has ever been posted here.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to when it would be considered appropriate standard of practice for a doctor to write a prescription when there is no medical need. Even Rush had to pretend to be in pain to convince his many, many doctors to write his narcotic scrips.

It demonstrates such a profound ignorance of the nature and purpose of insurance that one is almost rendered speechless. I suppose it is excusable coming from a Canadian, but barely so.

Insurance serves several purposes, not the least of which is to provide incentives for policyholders to act so as to reduce both the amount that will need to be paid out in claims, as well as the costs that will be uninsured, which will often end up being visited on someone else when the policyholder is unable to pay them (the other party to an accident who is unable to recover completely on their damages, their creditors when they are unable to pay their debts due to the burden of uninsured costs, government bodies who are required to expend resources to deal with the event that gave rise to the loss, etc.). It is a legitimate function of government to regulate insurance, both to keep the insurance industry healthy by reducing the likelihood of large, difficult to predict claims that cause excessive financial stress, as well as to reduce the externalizing of uninsured costs. In Florida, for example, where the risk of wind damage is very high, the state went so far as to require that insurers provide premium discounts for construction methods that reduce the likelihood of wind damage. Why? Because (a) insurers are no longer going to offer wind damage policies if they are unable to reasonably predict the payouts (and thus the premiums needed to cover them). That is what happened when Hurricane Andrew resulted in $16 billion of insurable damage, with almost half the insurance companies in the state going out of business, and most of the rest severely crippled. The state had to step in because insurers were cancelling policies in the hundreds of thousands out of fear it would happen again. And (b) government itself will save huge amounts of money on debris removal, reconstruction, temporary shelter, etc. if appropriate wind mitigation construction is employed.

Where were all the howls from the right wing that Florida was imposing a cost on insurance companies (in the form of premium discounts) that homeowners should have had to eat, even if performing the appropriate wind mediation meant that insurers would be reaping the benefits of lower claims costs in the billions of dollars?

Health insurance is no different. It makes all kinds of sense to spend small amounts on prevention in order to avoid very costly interventions later on. That is as true of contraception as anything else. You whine about government and ratepayers having to pay for birth control, and you ignore that the same government and the same ratepayers are currently paying substantially more than that cost for pre-natal, delivery and post-natal care. Rhode Island was the first state to obtain approval to expand the availability of family planning services provided under Medicaid. In the first three years it cost them an additional $5.7 million to pay for family planning, and saved $14.3 million in costs for delivery and post-natal care. That's a return on investment of 150%. What insurance company isn't going to love that? Research has also been done on the costs/savings associated with employer-paid oral contraceptive coverage. Taking into account only direct medical expenses of pregnancy/childbirth/abortion, the savings generated by the use of oral contraceptives were $2,500 per patient per year. Mercer did a study incorporating all of the indirect expenses of pregnancy (absences, maternity leave, reduced productivity, turnover when pregnant employees decide to leave), and found that it would cost employers 15-17% more if they chose not to provide contraceptive coverage.

So yes, Dave, mandating coverage of contraceptives serves the purpose of insurance extremely well. You may choose to remain living in the 1930s when people only went to a doctor if they were dying, but the rest of us have come to recognize the benefits of routine, preventative medical care, not just for health, but for the bottom line as well.

[BoSoxGal]

Beyond the costs of pregnancy/labor medical care, contraceptives prevent another policy beneficiary from coming into being.

Big win for insurance, since even healthy children require extensive wellcare in their early years. Beyond which, even reasonably healthy kids get sick on a routine basis, requiring multiple visits to the GP in this age of 'rush to the Dr. for a Zip pack' parenting mentality.

[dgs49]

BSG, are you seriously suggesting that if a female college student is denied "free" BC pills, she will inevitably get pregnant? Can you imagine any other strategies she might employ to avoid getting pregnant? Think hard. (A columnist who will remain nameless opined that Ms. Fluke's hairstyle alone should serve as a pretty good BC measure).

Are you seriously suggesting that RAPE of college co-eds is such a prevalent occurrence that co-eds should be provided free BC pills "just in case"?

Are you seriously suggesting that health insurers should be compelled to provide this unprecedented coverage AND NOT BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADJUST THEIR RATES ACCORDINGLY? In your world, who would pay these excess costs? Would the insurance companies simply pay for them out of the goodness of their hearts?

Do you own stock in any health insurers?

[Scooter]

What she is saying is that contraceptives would actually result in a net savings in health care costs, which is what the evidence shows.

But this has never been about the evidence, has it?