You want to know why your medical bills and insurance premiums continues to skyrocket? It's because of state lawmakers that pander to women's special interest groups, and the media who caters to them at every turn. That's why I found an
Associated Press article written by Susan Haigh that moans about a Connecticut law that forces insurers to cover infertility treatments.
She wasn't fussing about the law actually being on the books, however. The alarm bells were ringing because Connecticut had the
nerve to place an age limit for the forced coverage! Connecticut forces insurers to cover fertility treatments only through age 40, rather than the more "sensible" ages of 44 for New York and 46 for New Jersey. Haigh reported on a couple who couldn't have children on their own. After previously adopting a child that was eventually returned to the birth mother, the 42 year-old wife tried get their insurer to cover her fertility treatments, but alas, the insurer wouldn't.
Gee; I wonder why? Could it be that Connecticut and other states throw all of these regulations and forced coverage on them to the point where they're simply not going to cover something they aren't forced to?
I sympathize with the couple, as I know it must be hard not to be able to conceive a child on their own. However, the government should not act as a fairy godmother; making every wish come true at the expense of someone else. If the government is going to force anyone to do anything, they first need to come up with a compelling interest as to why this measure should be enforced. That compelling interest should be based on whether the bill will give their residents more liberty, or the action that is being taken now is depriving residents of their liberty.
In this case, Connecticut is not only hurting the medical industry by burdening insurers with more forced claims, but it is hurting other residents by helping to artificially raise their premiums. Also, the personal factor comes into play; if the couple wants the child bad enough, they'd pay for the fertility treatments themselves. After all; the child is not the state's responsibility, or the insurer's responsibility. It's theirs. That also means that the decision is theirs as well, and they don't have the right to force a business, individual, or government to pay for them to have a child.
I'mma pull a Walter Williams real quick, and pop up a scenario for you:
Let's say the insurer pays for this couple to have a child through the force of the Connecticut state government. Now this child is cute as a button; he/she has the perfect smile, beautiful face, etc. So, a producer or agent coincidentally sees the child and thinks, "hey, that is the child I've been looking for to put in my commercial." So he approaches the new parents and offers a cool $2 million for an elaborate commercial to be played during the Super Bowl. The parents take the money (duh).
Considering the insurer was forced to pay for the costs of the fertility treatments that gave this child life, shouldn't they get a cut of that money from the commercial? After all, the child wouldn't have been born if it wasn't for the insurer springing for the costs. Yeah; and I'm sure you're about to say, "Well Expert, using that logic, wouldn't the insurer have the same claim if they offered this on their own?" No, because then the coverage would have been set on the terms that the insurer and the customer agreed upon, and I doubt that would have been a requirement.
There's a considerable difference between having the freedom to do something, rather than being forced to do it. Freedom gives you the opportunity to weigh the costs and the benefits of taking an action before you do it. Force, however, means you are compelled to do it regardless of the costs or the benefits. With governments at the state and federal level continuing to use force in order to set medical and economic policy it's no wonder health insurance is in the state it's in.
But hey; we can always blame the big medical companies, right? Right.
