Saturday, March 10, 2012

Affordable Health Care Act...Not So Affordable...

As a devout Christian I do not have a problem with the use of contraception. After all, there are married couples who use contraception. And while I completely disagree with sex outside of marriage (as all Christians should), if you're going to have sex outside of marriage, you ought to take as many precautions as possible to prevent catching an STD or having a child out of wedlock. My problem with President Obama's Affordable Health Care Act, which mandates that all employers including many religious organizations who provide health care for their employees must now also provide free contraception for their employees, including sterilization and abortifacients, is the Obama administration's justifications for passing the bill. The justifications are quite misleading.

President Obama's administration and the supporters of the Affordable Health Care Act say that it's a women's health issue. They say it will make contraception more affordable for women. They say that during a woman's life span contraception will cost her between $3,600 and $18,000. They say that tax payers will save between 4.7 and 6.2 billion dollars. They say it will help avoid more unintended pregnancies.

First, why is the Affordable Health Care Act being sold to the public simply as a women's health issue? Is the health and welfare of men not important? Are men not worth protecting? Second, the life span of women in America is 80 yrs. If the average woman did not began having sex until the age of 21 (we know the average woman becomes sexually active before then), and used contraception for all 59 yrs between the age of 21 and 80, the average woman would spend $305 a year to total $18,000. $305 a year comes out to just over $25 a month; a cost which is reduced even further by the fact that free health clinics give out some form of free contraception. Are we saying that the average woman, even the average poor woman, cannot afford $25 of month for contraception in a country where the majority of poor people receive economic assistance? Also, if it is true that 99% of women have used some form of contraception during their life, at no point and time are 99% of women using contraception at any one given time.

Third, maybe the Affordable Health Care Act will save tax payers between 4.7 and 6.2 billion dollars, but increase in insurance premiums due to the Affordable Health Care Act will absorb any such savings. As a result of the passing of the AHCA premiums will go up to as high as $1,200 for the average person. An increase in premiums will make it much more difficult for small businesses, colleges and universities to even offer health care to its employees and students. Furthermore, 4.7 to 6.2 billion dollars is a large savings when it stands alone, but we examine how much tax payers pay in federal and state taxes for health care that number is quite putrid.

Finally, how do we define unintended pregnancies. Do we define unintended pregnancies based upon whether or not an individual is married or not? There are unmarried couples that plan to have children when they have sexual intercourse and married couples that do not. When are we going to force people to hold themselves accountable for their actions? To have sex outside of marriage is a choice. To have a sex when one cannot afford the consequences is a choice. Sex in general is a choice. If as a Christian I own a non-religious business, why should I be held accountable for someone else's actions that my beliefs teach me are sin?

P.S. Is anyone else uncomfortable with President Obama passing the AHCA given how much money big pharma has donated to his presidential campaign??? Hmmmm...