Changing policies means nothing with the mandate in place.
So your position is that covering birth control is, at this time, the maximal policy that anyone can hold (meaning that it has maximum coverage possible)? If not, then the above is false.
Drug coverage most likely go up because of it and all policies must include it, as I've been saying all along, consumer choice loses here.
The minimum coverage plan will probably go up slightly, sure.
Fewer electives, but no matter what the consumer must fund an elective they may have a problem with, and it skews the risk up. This is fact.
It will have a slight overall effect on the price (probably pennies per person), but not a big one, because, as has been noted by many people opposed to this, it is a small percentage of people who will partake of this covered service.
Of course, there is no refund period after a "free look" period, so anyone who had the coverage for more than three months is SOL.
This is because they are paying for a service, and as such, the money they put in is not theirs once they relinquish possession of it.
Fact: money you no longer own is not your money.
But it doesn't matter because everyone has to pay for birth control now.
Repeating a false claim doesn't make it any less false. They aren't paying for birth control, they are paying for their health care policy. The money that goes towards the birth control is not their money. The minimum mandatory coverage that they are paying for changed.
My point all along was the starting point is the consumers money
And that point has been, from the starting point, 100% incorrect. If it
was their money, cancelling th epolicy after never having utilized teh services would mean they could take their money back. tehy can't. Because it is no longer their money.
they make the choice to purchase/not purchase into the pool.
they are purchasing the policy, which guarantees certain services will be covered should they need to utilize them. They aren't purchasing "into the pool", they are purchasing access to a service. If they were buying into the pool, they'd be able to take their money back out if they chose to leave the pool without utilizing any services at all. Tehy can't do that, ergo, the money ceases to be theirs once they relinquish possession of it.
It further reinforces that the mandate takes a choice away from them.
It's never been their choice to determine what an insurance companies minimum coverage plans were, thus there is no choice removed from them. They are still free to choose the minimum coverage plan. Teh minimum coverage plan has simply changed.
I've never said paid premiums are the consumers, but that their money starts the cycle.
when you say "They pay for another persons service" you are saying the money is the Customers by virtue of the simple fact that one can't pay for something with money that is not theirs.