"Free" contraceptives

I'm no expert on health insurance, but I find the mindset of liberals on this issue peculiar.

i) First of all, liberals operate with the shortsighted notion that if their employer "gives" them something, like "free" contraceptives, they don't have to pay for it. Really?

If it costs a business something to provide contraceptives to employees, then that is coming out of someone's pocket, is it not? On the face of it, there are only two candidates: either the business is charging customers more to defray the cost, or else the company is paying the employee less. Or both. 

So what's the advantage of making less, of having a smaller paycheck, so that someone else can use your money to buy you contraceptives? 

Also, if all businesses above a certain size are legally required to provide contraceptives, and if the company must raise prices on goods or services to do that, then consumers in general are subsidizing contraceptives. And employees are consumers. So aren't you paying for it one way or the other? Either it comes out of your paycheck or it comes out of the hidden surcharge for whatever you buy. 

Put another way, if businesses weren't require by law to provide contraceptives, they could afford to pay their employees more. Likewise, if they weren't required by law to provide contraceptives, they could afford to charge their customers less.

So isn't it a tradeoff? Yes, you have to buy your own contraceptives, but your take-home pay is higher. 

ii) Another problem is that, to my knowledge, companies are often required to provide a preset package of healthcare benefits, whether or not you need all or most of the benefits. In effect, you're paying for a lot of benefits that don't benefit you. Paying for lots of stuff you don't need and don't use. In effect, the company is garnishing your wages.

I suppose the theory behind this is to spread the cost around. Make healthcare more expensive for more people so that it's less expensive for a few. Fewer people using more benefits over against more people using fewer benefits. 

Again, though, that's a tradeoff. You're making healthcare more expensive for many or most people to make it less expensive for fewer people. What if a company is required to offer 20 different kinds of contraception, even though you only use one kind. Or what about postmenopausal female employees who don't need contraception?

We can debate the pros and cons of this arrangement, but I'm struck by how nearsighted many liberals seem to be. Let's consider some alternative arrangements:

a) There's a distinction between a business offering insurance and a business providing insurance. 

Suppose a company was able to give employees an opt-out option. The company would provide insurance coverage if you want it, but you are given a choice. If you receive coverage, you will receive less pay–if you decline coverage, you will receive more pay. If you opt out of company-sponsored insurance, less money will be withheld from your paycheck. What you do with your extra income is up to you. You could get private insurance. Or, if you're young and healthy, you might prefer to be uninsured–and pay out of pocket on a fee-for-service basis if you need to see a doctor.

Is there some obvious reason why that would be an outrageous arrangement?

b) Likewise, what about customized insurance packages where you pay for as much or little coverage as you want or need? Why not give policyholders a checklist of items to choose from? They are free to select what they want or need, rather than paying for the entire menu. Is there some reason why that would be an outrageous arrangement? Is having the freedom to spend your own earnings on what you want such an evil notion?