Free Markets, Free People


And then there’s the crony capitalism angle to the contraception mandate

Peter Schweizer points out:

Forget for a minute the religious question and look at who wins big here: Big Pharma. This mandate is not really about condoms or generic versions of “the pill,” which are available free or cheap in lots of places. This is about brand-name birth control drugs and other devices that some consumers swear off because they are too expensive. The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requires health-insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage for all “FDA approved contraceptive methods.” It does not insist on generics. And it does not offer any cost containment.

What’s more, the mandate prevents health-insurance companies from having copays or deductibles for the benefit. This is the perfect set up for Big Pharma. Since the drugs will be paid for by a third party (insurance companies, who will pass the cost on to employers and the rest of us), the consumer won’t worry about the price. Expensive brand names will no doubt see demand rise. Ask more health-care analysts why the cost of medical services continues to rise so rapidly and near the top of the list is the fact that a third-party payment system won’t contain costs.

Need Big Pharma on your side in healthcare mandate struggle?  Looking for a way to put private health insurance companies out of business (or have them abandon the market)?  This is a great way to help that along.  I imagine there are other things to mandate for “free” as well, if you can get this one to stick (and have Big Pharma on your side and not screaming about it, after all, you didn’t say they had to give their stuff away for “free”).

By the way, when you finally have your way with the insurance industry and see private insurance companies get out of the healthcare insurance business, you’ll no longer need Big Pharma, will you?

When you finally have a single payer system and that single payer is government, then you will decide what will be paid for drugs and medicines, won’t you?  After all, who are they going to sell their stuff too if not the single payer?  Innovation and new drugs?  Hey, they’re overhyped.  And anyway, people who live longer cost health care providers (uh, that would be government) money.

It’s like the red kangaroo Dale talks about.  You can see this convergence coming from a mile off, but seemingly we can’t (or won’t) do a thing about it.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

16 Responses to And then there’s the crony capitalism angle to the contraception mandate

  • “This is the perfect set up for Big Pharma. Since the drugs will be paid for by a third party (insurance companies, who will pass the cost on to employers and the rest of us), the consumer won’t worry about the price. Expensive brand names will no doubt see demand rise.”

    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    But what’s missing here is any linkage to the medical device/drug companies…so, no cronyism you can show. Just innuendo.

    • @Ragspierre You probably meant no cronyism you can show, yet. You have to love reading the people commenting that it doesn’t cost the government, and it won’t cost the taxpayer, and it will admittedly cost the insurance companies, but somehow, as usual, they translate that as ‘free’.

      • @looker OK. And I’m confident there are compliant fascist players out there, reading the ground, and ready to exploit the fascist economic model of ObamaCare. So…???

        • @Ragspierre Oh, the only surprise I have is that they’d agree to help knowing as McQ pointed out, they’ll be next on the agenda. But then profit now, worry later has been the American corporate mantra for a solid 20 years so….shrug…..

        • @looker Really, looker? That’s how YOU would run YOUR company? What makes you better than they?

        • @Ragspierre Long term goals, not short term profits. I do realize however, that would probably net me no investors. It’s the old fuddy duddy in me that makes me want to build something that lasts, and keeps promises it made to employees instead of selling the promises for fast profit and my early retirement. I’m a crappy cutthroat capitalist, I admit.

        • @Ragspierre Wait, was this a trick question where I should have answered that I’d make massive political contributions or throw my weight behind a candidate’s policies so they could make me behind the scenes promises of future government payoff to my company for my good behavior?

        • @looker Now, looker. The business people I know…like the vast majority of lawyers I personally know…are good people. They do not suffer by comparison with you, and I hold you in some regard. They work for the long-term maximization of their investor’s capital…especially since a lot of it belongs to them. As do their reputations and integrity.

        • @Ragspierre I think I’m talking more like a GM here. I know a good number of small business guys who as you say, are quite good people. Perhaps I’m jaded by my corporate experience in watching what I considered to be a tremendous company gutted by short term vision and plain greed. The entertaining irony is they themselves were taken in by one of the biggest scams going, Enron.

        • Actually, it wasn’t very entertaining, I say that with a heap of bitter sarcasm.

        • @Ragspierre And geeze man, you know, it takes so few well placed…..individuals…. to thoroughly destroy something, I think we’re getting a demonstration of that on a national level (have been for a while, really).

        • @looker Oh. My. Enron. That could warp eeeeennnnneeebody… Shoot, you’re actually pretty normal, given…

        • @Ragspierre chuckle….I departed before the depths of Enron had been completely plumbed. They didn’t just get in bed with Enron, they started to make the company over in Enron’s image.

  • What’s happening in Massachusetts with the Romneycare (the father of Obamacare) is that they are claiming that their prices are not rising as fast as those of the rest of the country. But what they leave out of that is the fact that people are buying down, i.e. paying more for less, in order to control their spending. That’s what is being called a success by the Romneybots. Something similar will happen with Obamacare, with mandates driving prices up as buy-downs keep them from becoming prohibitive (we all know that this is heading toward destruction of the private health insurance market) where, again, you are forced to buy more mandates but then have to buy less coverage. But that coverage will be politically correct, at least.

  • What’s happening in Massachusetts with Romneycare (the father of Obamacare) is that they are claiming that their prices are not rising as fast as those of the rest of the country. But what they leave out of that is the fact that people are buying down, i.e. paying more for less, in order to control their spending. That’s what is being called a success by the Romneybots. Something similar will happen with Obamacare, with mandates driving prices up as buy-downs keep them from becoming prohibitive (we all know that this is heading toward destruction of the private health insurance market) where, again, you are forced to buy more mandates but then have to buy less coverage. But that coverage will be politically correct, at least.

    • @martinmcphillips So long as the Constitutional right to birth control is protected. Oh, it’s in there, if you squint reaaaaall hard it’s in the upper left hand corner.