Posted on 03/08/2012 6:15:26 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The question of who controls health-care costs has been endlessly discussed, but it seems that we’ve all missed the answer: the media. In recent weeks, we have watched the cost of birth-control pills rise dramatically: Three weeks ago, in the infancy of the Sandra Fluke fracas, we were told that the annual cost was, at most, $600; then Fluke upped the ante, reporting $1,000 per year in her congressional testimony; and finally, her figure was widely misreported as being $3,000 per annum. This last spike seems to have been the messy byproduct of Fluke’s claim that $3,000 would be the cost over her three-year stay at Georgetown Law.
Fluke’s figure seems to have been plucked from thin air. Planned Parenthood estimates the monthly cost at between $15 and $50, which translates to $160 to $600 per year. If we were to take their maximum figure and run with it, we’d still be well below Fluke’s oft-repeated claim. But even Planned Parenthood’s price is on the high end. As has been widely reported, both Target and Walmart (and their online iterations) have been selling generic birth-control pills for $9 per month in 41 states since 2007 — equivalent to the cost of three cheap coffees at Starbucks. (The cost in the nine remaining states is around $27, or $324 per year. For the difference, we can thank those states’ regulations making it illegal to sell prescription drugs as loss leaders.)
Over the course of a given year, these pills would cost their buyer $108, approximately one-tenth of Fluke’s estimation. In the interest of fairness, we should up that to $120 to include sales taxes in those few states that levy them on prescription drugs, and then throw in a trip to the doctor’s office to get hold of the prescription. Let’s presume it’s an expensive trip — say, $80. We’re still looking at only $200 per year, at which rate Sandra Fluke could stay at Georgetown Law for 15 years and pay for contraception no more than the $3,000 she claims it will cost her for three.
The uninsured and unemployed are irrelevant to the debate over the HHS mandate, which applies only to the insured and the employers that insure them. But even an uninsured woman who paid a (pricey) doctor out of pocket to write her a prescription would be looking at no more than $250 per year, or $25 per month.
The Walmart/Target figure is not a red herring. Brand-name drugs and their generic counterparts are identical in their active ingredients, dosages, and methods of consumption. The difference in price between generic and branded drugs is almost wholly attributable to their respective positions in the patent cycle. It is true that many insurance companies do not provide coverage for generics, but this is because drug companies often impose supply restrictions, requiring that insurers buy branded drugs instead of generics as a condition of being allowed to buy other branded medicines that have no generic equivalents. For the most part, patients do not notice the resulting increase in costs, because of the way our system takes purchasing decisions away from consumers. This is a problem in its own right, but one not addressed at all by the HHS mandate.
Day after day, we hear melodramatic stories, rarely backed up, of a supposed crisis in access to contraception. In the real world, in 41 of our 50 states, contraception costs little more per month than a trip to the movies and, in the other nine, its monthly cost is about half what the average American spends on gas each week. Rome is burning all around us, and it is time we redirected our attention from this pseudo-problem to the flames that can actually sear us.
— Charles C. W. Cooke is an editorial associate at National Review.
"Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."
Then Fluke went on to talk about contraception that was needed for medical reasons. You and I know that some contraceptives - not available in generic form - are used for certain medical reasons. Those aren't the ones that are available for $9/month or $15/month.
This whole thing was carefully written and staged. First, we screamed the $3,000/year was wrong (some us said read what she said - she said during law school, that's over $1,000 per year. Now, we're screaming contraception is available for under $1,000 a year. Yes, but she set us up. She said it can cost over $1,000 per year and gave examples of contraceptives needed for medical reasons. I'll wager generic contraceptives aren't going to work on all those cases and that Fluke is technically right. Some pro helped her write what she said.
A woman with a very happy husband?
Having lots of sex does NOT necessarily equate to being a "slut."
Rush really blew this one.
A conservative man should always strive to be a gentleman, even when dealing with women who are not ladies.
Look at the Nags who always are holding the “Keep Abortion Legal” signs.....I would guess all of them are lesbos...and of course, why would a lesbo ever need to worry about having an unplanned pregnancy? What?!? they accidently trip over a turkey baster?
That may have held in the past, but thanks to Feminism, that's changed.
Sit tight. Soon we'll find out she was a man.
As to the 3K price, that's what it's going to cost in the near future. Just like $10 gas, count on condom inflation.
Fluke BS is falling apart. I wonder if the MSM will report this?
Even Judge Judy would call that hearsay..
He should have stopped after posing the question “what do you call someone who wants someone else (the government for instance)to pay for their having sex.” He would have gotten the point across without calling her anything
Disagree.
The mess Rush is in is a classic example. He’s in trouble not so much for being inaccurate, but for being “mean” to a woman.
It isn’t fair, but women (liberal women) are still treated more gingerly than men or conservative women.
Rush is perceived as unchivalrously attacking a helpless female. While this perception is not necessarily accurate, it is killing him and has allowed the Left to judo flip the entire issue from one that is good for conservatives to a huge win for them.
Overstatement and hyperbole again by the maniacal Left.
They quote Rolls-Royce costs for Chevy Cruze amenities. Birth-control pills are, out of pocket, maybe $50 per month, or $600 a year, not $3,000, as Sandra Fluke claims.
Carry your own water, beggar woman. Shut up about it.
Or don’t take any responsibility for your actions, shut up about it.
Either way, just shut up about it.
Rush has been doing the very same thing for over 25 years, and it ain't killed him yet.
While I haven’t listened much in recent years, I don’t recall him calling an individual female a “slut” or “prostitute.”
I don’t care.....when the Left takes back all of the nasty things they’ve said about Sarah Palin and her family (and I’m not even a Palin Supporter), then I’ll worry about something Rush Limbaugh says.....The Silent Majority are with Rush, any way.
What Rush said has hurt his cause, IMO.
Reason enough for not saying it.
YMMV.
We’ll see in 6 months if Rush has been hurt by it......No such thing as bad publicity, all Rush asks is that you get the name right.
Agreed. Rush will probably be fine.
However, he contributed greatly to turning the issue being discussed from freedom of religion to whether contraception should be banned.
WTH?
#1 is a positive for conservatives, #2 a gift to the Left.
More people support Rush’s position on this than you think.
Dumb Slut alert...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.