Here are my common sense views on insurance for contraceptives and the Sandra Fluke controversy.
First, let's look at some facts.
Contraceptives don't cost $3,000 annually. Even Sandra Fluke agrees with that.
Wal-Mart and Target reportedly offer generics for ~$9 monthly or slightly more than $100 annually.
Individuals shouldn't purchase insurance for items that cost $10 monthly. Groceries, gasoline, beer, McDonald's, soft drinks, candy and coffee are a few items that come to mind.
If someone wants the protection of contraceptives, that person should purchase them.
The person would simply choose to purchase contraceptives over other comparably priced items, such as one of those enumerated above.
If the person can't afford to make the purchase, that person should get a job.
If the person can't find a job, the person should enlist the sexual partner or partners, as the case may be, in paying for the contraceptives.
If no willing co-payer can be found, the person should abstain.
Not to follow such simple logic is to act in a willfully or grossly negligent manner.
I would have thought a Georgetown law student would know all of the above.
Accordingly, Ms. Fluke must have a broader objective than the purchase of contraceptives.
As for me, I believe we should pay for what we decide to buy and only insure that which will save us from catastrophe.
An item costing ~thirty three cents per day doesn't seem like something appropriate for insurance.
At least that's my view.