That's a pretty weird idea. In your eyes, does the same principle apply to other components of insurance coverage? E.g. part of my insurance premium is just a direct 1-to-1 transfer of funds that goes to pay for my blood pressure medication?fisticuffs wrote:You actually don't pay. She pays, her insurance premium which now includes birth control.
It works for items that are less costly than the premiums, but what happens when total costs rise above that of premiums? A relative of mine has a condition that requires treatments that cost roughly $3k/month. His individual-specific premiums (paid by employer) probably do not cost >$3k month - the treatment costs are instead distributed across a group of subscribers, increasing the average premium price. Can you really say that they (the employer and other employees) don't pay for the treatments?
None of this is a problem, of course, it's the nature of insurance. I'm just trying to pick on your odd conception of how insurance works. It seems like you've chosen a convenient idea of insurance for this particular case (birth control) that doesn't apply universally.