Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

BIRTH CONTROL: It’s cheaper than pregnancy

Letter by Robert L. McComas, Gig Harbor on March 7, 2012 at 11:16 am | 23 Comments »
March 7, 2012 11:45 am

Re: “Give choice to policy holders” (letter, 3-6).

I believe the writer is mistaken in his premise that policy holders would benefit by insurers not covering birth control. It is far cheaper to pay for birth control than to pay for pregnancy and all of the associated costs.

If we are to make decisions on a cost basis, then women who use birth control would be given cheaper insurance than those who do not.

If we are only interested in saving money, we should quit covering costs of erectile dysfunction (ED) drugs for men. For those who keep injecting religion into this argument, perhaps God is giving you a sign that he wants you to quit having sex when he afflicts you with ED.

Why should insurance policy holders and taxpayers pay for ED males to have chemically induced sex? The House of Representatives should immediately reconvene its all-male panel to have hearings on the matter. This time the discussions would be appropriate as the panel and the mostly male representatives would have “some skin in the game,” so to speak.

I also recommend they seek out former Republican Sen. Bob Dole to chair the panel as he is intimately familiar with the topic and is also blessed with an abundant sense of humor and common sense – qualities which are totally lacking in the current chairman.

*
The News Tribune now uses Facebook commenting on selected blogs. See editor's column for more details. Commenters are expected to abide by terms of service for Facebook as well as commenting rules for thenewstribune.com. Report violators to webmaster@thenewstribune.com.