Misconceptions about cost of contraception

The April 22 guest column (“ ‘Free' contraception raises costs”) by Burke Christensen was not only misleading but fundamentally incorrect. He correctly states that insurance companies pay for their benefits by increasing their premiums to cover the costs of any increased benefits, such as birth control. However, he then blatantly states that “insurance is a very risky business. The incredible thing is that insurers have to calculate your premium before they know how much it will cost to insure you.”

There are actuarial tables for virtually any type of insurance and that the law of large numbers provides all the security these insurance companies need. It is even more “incredible” that there is no shortage of profitable insurance companies doing business in Iowa.

Furthermore, these companies require physical exams and will adjust their premiums accordingly depending on the exam results. Take life insurance premiums for smokers as one example.

It strikes me that the cost of contraception would be offset to some extent by fewer unwanted births or abortions. I understand the moral/ethical issues associated with abortions, but I have trouble with reluctance to support contraception for those who so choose to use it. Regardless, it does not make sense to try and reduce the issue to cost and who should pay for it.

Gordon Taylor

Anamosa