Health Insurance has no reason to promote the patch/the pill. It only prevents you from getting preggers, not from getting a STD.
If you get preggers then sure they will have to pay some $$ for the birth, but after that you have to start paying premiums for the child and its mo money for the HMO.
If however you get an STD then the insurance company is on the hook for the bills to treat it and there is no upside for the insurance company.
So I can see how they would want to discourage women from using a form of birth control that is bad for the insurance company from a financial point of view.
HMOs don't exist to do what is best for their policy holder, they exist to do what is best for their shareholder.
That's fine for making shoes and TV's and whatever, but when it comes to defense (police and fire departments and military) and heath, it's a huge fundamental issue.
That's also partly why I'm not comfortable with military contractors in Iraq. There are some areas where privitization works very well, but this isn't one of them.
"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011
People assume health insurance companies love preventative care because it will reduce costs in the long run. Except that any given (private) health insurance provider knows you aren't likely to be with them for your entire life.
This is especially true these days where people increasingly have several job changes. The insurance company doesn't see the point in spending money to reduce costs on people that are unlikely to be their customers in 10 years (or whatever).
