From a column at PJM:
Paying for recreational sex is the obligation of the individuals engaging in it....
Recreational sex is an optional way to pass one's time or express one's affection. It is not related to the medical healing of disease (the presumptive reason to favor health insurance for all).
Everyone who's physically able and unbound by moral or religious beliefs is free to indulge in recreational sex, but no one else should have to underwrite it. Why not have insurance bankroll the hotel room and room service while we're at it? Car service? Flowers? Champagne? Chocolate-dipped strawberries?
The argument that the supporters of this policy tend to come back with here is that the contraceptives (unlike the chocolate-dipped strawberries) actually save the insurance companies (and the other insured premium-payers) money, because the contraceptives are cheaper than either an abortion or obstetrics and pediatric care if the sex results in pregnancy.
But past experience has shown that the claims of cost savings by providing free "preventive" care have been illusory. In Massachusetts, for example, the claim was that under RomneyCare expanded access to primary care would save on more costly emergency room visits. But that did not turn out to be the case. And in any event, saving insurance companies and other premium payers money is not by itself sufficient justification for the government to mandate a policy. The way to save the most money, after all, would simply be to not provide any medical care at all.
