Shocker: Free Market Already Providing The Access To Contraception The Obamacare Mandate Would

To hear Democrats tell it these days, Republicans hate women because they think forcing employers to provide it violates their religious freedom, and forcing insurance companies to provide that coverage for free violates their economic freedom.

Republicans are, of course, right on both fronts. But for all the griping from the left about “reproductive rights” and “access to contraceptives,” it’s worth noting that the free market has already solved this problem.

Via Noel Sheppard, Walmart has been offering a month’s worth of contraceptive to women for as little as $9 since 2007.

BENTONVILLE, Ark. – Sept. 27, 2007 – Walmart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) today announced phase two of its $4 prescription program with changes that will help even more Americans deal with the high-cost of healthcare. The program – which has already saved Americans more than $610 million in its first year – has been expanded in two key ways:

More medicines covering more categories – Important prescription medicines have been added to the $4 program covering glaucoma, attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD), fungal infections and acne. Fertility and prescription birth control will also be included at $9, compared to national average prices ranging from $24 to $30 per month and saving women an estimated $15 to $21 per month – $180 to $250 annually.

Other retailers, Target most notably, have matched Walmart’s prices. And since this announcement, some types of birth control is being sold by Walmart and other retailers for as low as $4/month.

Contraception, in other words, is eminently affordable. There is hardly a pressing need for mandating that it be provided by employers or insurance companies.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    It seems to me conservatives would be very eager to get protection for safe sex into the hands of their children and for themselves.  They list among the highest group of Americans to be carrying STD’s; right above Cons and ex-Cons, if you believe what they tell you about their numbers.

     

    By fact or fiction, by stats or by stigma, a handful of groups within our
    population have been linked to elevated STD risk. Some assumptions feed the fallacy that only certain “types” of people acquire sexually transmitted diseases, when the plain fact is that nearly everyone who has sexual relations is vulnerable.

    However, official statistics and figures culled by researchers do reveal groups that are disproportionately affected. Who are they? Are the high rates explained by factors beyond their control, and is the health care system somehow failing these people? Moreover, are the high STD rates among specific groups having an impact on the rest of the population? Let’s take a look.

    The Military
    As if our men and women in uniform didn’t face enough threat to their well-being, the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have historically had higher STD rates than the civilian population. The running theory has always been that personnel of a sexually active age with long tours away from home—especially those deployed to countries with limited
    health care—simply find or put themselves at higher risk.

    In October 2006, a study of 1,700 women on active duty in support of the war in Iraq found that 2.5 percent were infected, most with genital herpes, chlamydia, or genital HPV. Though 95 percent of the female soldiers with STDs were redeployed without any health complications, the study was evidence of our need for more extensive STD screening in the
    military.

    A sweeping report, this one covering sexually transmitted infections of both men and women in the military from 2000 through 2005, found elevated levels of chlamydia, gonorrhea, nongonococcal urethritis, and syphilis in all branches of the military. The Army steadily led the other three branches. However, the numbers peaked in 2002, and in 2005 the rates for gonorrhea were actually lower than among civilians.

    Statistics are currently lacking but the subsequent impact on hometown communities is assumed to be significant.

    http://health.msn.com/health-topics/sexual-health/mens-sexual-health/std-superspreaders

    • Econwarrior

      So, Fluke and obama are exposed as liars by the American free enterprise system, and you scramble to change the subject?  Typical left wing extremist behavior.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        R180, your irrelevance wasn’t missed.

    • donwalk

      Don’t you have something better to do that to try and defame our Military? The Military has enough of their own problems when it comes to getting support from Liberal Democrats such as yourself.
      What your post has to do with the subject is very questionable to say the least. What is your purpose of posting an old report?

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        The point is maybe if you guys started promoting the use of condoms, the fewer STD’s you would spreading around your circles.

  • Davoarid

    Another way of saying it: “I’m sick of men bitching about how expensive it is to treat broken arms. Wal-Mart sells band-aids for $3.50.”

    • donwalk

      More posts such as yours and both Target and Walmart will be offering mental health counseling as well.

      • Davoarid

        Believing that $9 generic birth control from Wal-Mart is the best option for all women = Proof of mental acuity.

        Just curious. In your world, where should women go to determine which type of birth control works best for them?

        Be specific; use examples.

        • donwalk

          The range is 9.00 to 50.00 depending upon your insurance plan. Nobody stated that it was a flat 9.00.

    • tony_o2

      Because telling people they should pay for their own contraceptives before having sex is exactly like telling people they should use band-aids after breaking their arm……

      Perhaps the generic Walmart birth-control isn’t the best option for all women.  They should consult with their doctor to find out.  That still doesn’t necessitate forcing others to pay for their birth control prescriptions.

      Contraceptives aren’t 100% effective.  And if someone can’t afford to purchase their own birth control, how do they expect to pay for a child?  Maybe they shouldn’t have sex if they can’t afford to deal with the consequences? 

      I understand that “personal responsibility” is taboo to those who refuse to face the reality that actions have consequences.  I’ll refrain from calling them idiots who cannot understand a basic concept, and just accept that they are selfish people that don’t want to pay their own way. 

      • Davoarid


        That still doesn’t necessitate forcing others to pay for their birth control prescriptions.”

        They’re not. Their insurance companies will be paying for them. Just like insurance companies pay for STD screenings for men.

        • tony_o2

          They’re not. Their insurance companies will be paying for them.

          I hate to burst your bubble, but “the insurance company” is not funded by leprechauns.  You either a) pay for something yourself, or b) someone else pays for it.

          • Davoarid

            Oh. Then shouldn’t we object to insurance companies paying for ANYTHING?

          • Bat One

            With one notable exception, NOBODY is this stupid!  Are you another sock puppet?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            “I believe that if you had actually read up on American Revolutionary era history you would know that Benedict Arnold was not only given a trial before he was executed, but in fact had two trials.  Your comparison, not surprisingly, is bullshit!” – Bat One

            I beg to differ!

            http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama-administration-has-secret-panel-that-can-put-americans-on-a-kill-list/

          • tony_o2

            If you object to your insurance provider paying for anything, then why would you pay for insurance?  That was a pointless question of you to ask.  Did you run out of “rational” responses to the discussion?

  • SigFan

    If you cannot afford your own contraceptives then perhaps you should consider not having sex until you can.  This argument is still a smokescreen for the left’s true desire – public funding of abortions and abortion inducing drugs.  Contraceptives are readily available and imminently affordable already.  What the left wants is for the public to pay for the irresponsibility of others (themselves) who cannot control their base urges to have unrestricted sex and who will not accept the consequences of doing so.

    • Bat One

      Interesting how the subject of the discussion has been shifted from post-coital pregnancy prevention (abortion!) to “women’s health care.”

      • SigFan

        I get really weary of the left continually using spin and word games to try to mask their true intentions and desires.  Of course, if they stated them clearly and honestly they would lose every time, and they know it, hence the continual obfuscation.

        • Davoarid

          I think health insurance-paying women should be able to receive preventive care treatments and services without providing a co-pay.

          I apologize if this confuses you, SigFan.

          • SigFan

            Thank you for the “clarification”, but I already am aware that those of you on the left want someone else to pay for your irresponsible behavior. And those of us on the right want you to pay for your own indiscretions – no confusion at all.

          • Davoarid

            You pay for physicals and diabetes screenings for men each year. Why not add birth control counselling for women to the list?

          • tony_o2

            I think that women who pay their own health insurance should be able to pick plans that pay for preventative care, specifically contraceptives.

            But that still doesn’t change the root of this controversy.  Why should people who have a moral objection to contraceptives be forced to pay for someone else to receive them for free?

          • Davoarid

            Oh. They’re not.

          • tony_o2

            Just because some people can be fooled by the “accommodation” that forces insurance providers to pay for contraceptives without itemizing the costs on policy holder’s premiums, doesn’t mean that they are in fact “free” and that nobody is paying for them.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    I think it’s hilarious when Davoarid thinks” he/she is over anyone’s head.
    Or hannitized thinks he has an educated guess.

    lol. too funny. Such idiots are precious.

    • Guest

      If you’ve got something to contribute to the discussion besides ad hominem remarks, we’d all love to hear it.

  • tony_o2

    I heard that Planned Parenthood gives contraceptives to those who cant afford them.  Apparently there are a lot of talkers and not enough donors since they cant seem to raise enough funds to satisfy the demands of all these people who feel that it is an obligation to provide free birth control.

Top