BigJim
February 7th, 2002, 10:35 PM
this topic originally posted by morganlh85-
I think that it's absolutely wrong for insurance plans to not cover birth control. I've done research and found that many plans won't cover birth control, but will cover Viagra! This doesn't make any sense to me.
Consider this:
The average cost of one year of birth control is about $200-$300.
My mother's friend, who recently gave birth, received a bill for her delivery of over $12,000! Luckily, her insurance covered the cost. And this is for normal delivery. Just imagine the cost of C-Sections and other complications that may occur, such as a premature delivery. This also does not include prenatal care.
The cost of a first trimester abortion is about $450.
Why would the insurance companies overlook this? Surely they would rather pay the $200 than have to support a woman through an entire pregnancy! To me, this doesn't make any sense. Insurance companies would obviously save more money by preventing unwanted pregnancies than having to pay for unplanned pregnancies.
There is more information on how to take action at http://web.archive.org/web/20010427111258/http://www.covermypills.org/
What are your thoughts on this?
Christian Kirsche
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Money doesn't grow on trees. You get what you pay for. You can't get something for nothing. How many clichés express this ideal that for everything there is a price? Apparently not enough. Some Americans have yet to realize this commonsensical truth.
Look at the current campaign to make insurance companies pay for contraceptives. Jennifer Erickson, a Seattle pharmacist, has filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit charging that her employer engages in sexual discrimination by not covering contraceptives.
Should insurance cover the "pill"?
The D.C. City Council passed a controversial law July 11 requiring contraceptive coverage. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 24 states have legislation pending that would require contraceptive coverage, and 13 states already have such laws. As of Jan. 1, all federal employees now have contraceptive coverage, thanks to a law Congress passed last year.
Insurance 101
The only conclusion one can take from this is that people are clueless about insurance. The real purpose of private insurance is to spread costs.
The cost of auto repair, for example, can be staggering if you have an accident. Because people do not want to risk being stuck with a huge repair bill all at once, they buy insurance -- meaning they pay the insurance company a premium in exchange for the promise that the company will pay in case of an accident.
This spreads the costs of accidents. You may not have an auto accident during a five-year period, so your premium each year pays for other people's accidents. Then if you have a crash in year six, other people's premiums that year pay for your accident. That is what cost-spreading is all about.
But the whole concept of cost-spreading would be destroyed if insurance covered every minor expense. It would be silly for your auto insurance to pay every time you fill your gas tank, for example, or for homeowners' insurance to pay every time you change your light bulb.
Unlike an expensive accident that might occur once every few years, filling your gas tank is such a regular expense that cost-spreading occurs on its own. Having insurance pay for gas would just make your premiums go up, not only by the cost of the gas but also by the cost of all the extra paperwork. Insurance works well only when it covers rare, catastrophic expenses, not when it tries to cover regular small expenses.
Who should pay the bill?
This common sense seems to evaporate, however, when the subject is health insurance. People cannot seem to resist the idea that health insurance should be required to cover everything under the sun, whether it be their teeth cleanings or their sexual apparatus. Because of people's resistance to paying out-of-pocket for any health costs, most health insurance policies already cover regular checkups and even the cheapest drugs, even though adding all those extra levels of paperwork and insurance company employees just makes insurance policies more expensive for everyone. When it comes to health insurance, people think that they can get something for nothing.
Now many want to spread that idea to birth control. If a woman's insurance company pays $25 per month for her contraceptives, there are only two possibilities -- either the insurance company will raise her premium by at least $25 per month (plus extra for administrative costs), or it will raise other people's premiums by some amount. The insurance company is not going to provide contraceptives for free out of the goodness of its heart. The contraceptive campaigners really want the second option: to force people who do not use contraceptives to pay higher premiums.
They often have cited a 1998 study that found that mandating contraceptive coverage would cost about $1.43 per month per person, compared with the current out-of-pocket cost of $25 per month per contraceptive user. If an average cost of $25 per month per user drops to $1.43, that can only mean that a whole lot of people who do not use contraceptives are going to pay higher insurance premiums.
That seems strikingly unfair. Many people of childbearing age do not use contraceptives because they actually want (believe it or not) to have children, or because they are infertile, or because of religious objections to contraceptives, or because they are unmarried devout Christians, Muslims or Jews. Why should any of these people be forced to pay higher insurance premiums so contraceptive users can get a free ride?
A matter for the individual
Then there is the idea that women are being treated unfairly. According to an AP report, Chris Charbonneau, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Western Washington, said that policies that do not include contraceptives force women to pay 68% more out of pocket than men for health care. Thus, Planned Parenthood argues, because women currently buy most of the contraceptives, men should have to pay as well.
This idea is faulty for two reasons. First, it would not work, because insurance companies would just raise rates for women. After all, it is legal for insurance companies to charge different rates based on gender in some cases (as they do for auto insurance for teenage males). Second, even if it did work, shouldn't individual couples pay for contraception on their own?
If a woman cannot afford to buy contraceptives every month, why doesn't she ask her partner to kick in some money or wear a condom? Do we really need the government to step in and tell people how to pay for such a private matter?
If the contraceptive campaigners have their way, no one in America can escape paying for contraceptives. The government will, by the force of law, require everyone to pay for other people's sexual choices. Could anything be more senseless?
Stuart Buck is a recent honors graduate of Harvard Law School and a PubliusFellow of the Claremont Institute.
muftak57
Sorry Morgan, but the article posted by CK is correct in EVERY point.
The idea behind insurance is, as he say, cost-spreading.
All those years you pay premiums and don't use them in essence, count as "credit" that you are "saving up" for when you do have a big medical bill.
The money isn't going to come from nowhere.
And, quite simply, contraception is NOT a health issue in over 99% of women. Plain and simple.
There is no medical "problem" with pregnancy, it is natural. It doesn't require administration by a doctor (merely a visit for the prescription) to be on the pill.
Also, as stated, making others pay for your contraceptive choice is ethically unfair.
If I were a devout Catholic, I would likely be enraged that money from my premiums was going towards paying for a sinful thing.
You talk about how cheap they are. Well, for starters, you can get them even cheaper at Planned Parenthood.
kuju get's them at PP for about $7 a pack instead of $30.
$7 is one hour's work at minimum wage. If you can't afford that, frankly, you shouldn't be having sex.
Even the full price is only a day's wages part time.
Now, as for Viagra.
Viagra is a treatment for a medical condition. Impotence.
Impotence, unlike fertility, is not normal bodily functioning.
Sorry about this babe... I'm all in favor of accessable contraception for all, but there are limits.
As for an abortion costing $450...
If you had an abortion EVERY YEAR, I think either your premiums would skyrocket, your plan would be changed to not cover abortions or they would simply cancel your membership.
morganlh85
I agree with both of you; you're right.
My situation, however is somewhat different.
I am on insurance called CHIP - Children's Health Insurance Program for people age 0-19 from low-income families. Most of the families on the plan get the insurance for free. It doesn't cover any birth control unless its needed for another purpose besides birth control. So you can assume that these familes can't afford to pay for birth control; no matter how cheap it is. I know my family can't, and we're not that poor or anything. We just can't afford it. So what are we supposed to do? And the kids from low-income families who end up pregnant are going to end up waaaaaay worse off than pregnant teens from middle or high-class families. These people are even more likely to not seek proper medical care for their unborn child. So, the CHIP people will end up with even more low-income families with children that need insurance that tax-payers in Pennsylvania will have to pay for. That money doesn't come out of nowhere either. It comes from taxes.
kuju
haha... I was reading through this and I'm was all ready ti say "But I get mine from PPH for $7... but Muftak already did. Humph! taking words out of my mouth... again!
Trick#1 for getting free birth control. Claim irregular and painful periods. Bad cramps. etc. this IS a medical condition as birth control pills will regulate your period and are said to relieve cramps and PMS. medical insurance often covers that.
PPH is also a good idea.
but I agree with Muftak when he says that if he were a devout Christian, he would be pissed that his money was going towards something that is against his belief. Though I am certainly not a devout Christian. And neither is he I believe. everyone here knows that we are faithful follwers of Santaism... right Muftak? MILK AND COOKIES!
but seriously. Try to find your nearest PPH clinic. From my experiences, they're useful and wonderful.
muftak57
This makes things a wee bit different.
I believe such a plan should cover contraceptives.
I'm on welfare here. So I get free premiums for the provincial medical plan.
Not only that, but I get extended benifits, including glasses, some dental, almost all prescriptons.
And birth control. Pills or Depo-provera. Your choice.
Welfare does this for a very cost efficient reason, in essence.
The cost per month to them for cover birth control is $30 or less.
The increse in welfare benefits for another kid are $50 a month prenatal allowance then a total increase of almost $200 (at least. Over $500 for a first child) once the child is born.
So, from a strictly budgetary view (which is welfare's preferred view) handing out free birth control is an excellent plan.
Free birth control for teens is especially important... the teen pregnancy rate continues to skyrocket.
Cover your pills? Yes.
Cover working adult's pills? No.
TomBlack
Darn it, my medical coverage should include condoms too! Seriously, the same logic can be applied here. For a mere $12 for a box of 36 (?) I could go a whole month with a pop per day.
Now I agree about the whole having a child will only cost the insurance company as they will be shelling out money to have the kid and to take of the kid.
On the other side as muftak57 said,
"$7 is one hour's work at minimum wage. If you can't afford that, frankly, you shouldn't be having sex."
I understand that not everyone in the world is well off (My family isnt rolling around in mounds of money either) but accidents still happen and you will still need to be dealing with a child.
I also must add that your BF should be wearing a condom, on the pill or no.
STD's are still a consideration and no matter how much some will say that their partner would always be faithful, there is still a posibility that they could cheat, catch something and give it to you.
sweetpea
Where is $7 minimum wage? Minimum wage here is $5.75. Hahaha safe to say NO ONE with a minimum wage job cou.d have sex by your standards.
TomBlack
Sweetpea - they shouldnt be.
Accidents happen and sometimes some people need to get abortions and that ussually requires $$$
Dante
Federal minimum wage is actually $5.15. For teens under the age of 20 it as low as $4.25 an hour during the first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer. Even with it that low, who couldn't afford either a box of condoms, or a little abstinance.
Moneran
Minimum wage is $6.75 in Ontario. That's in in Canadian dollars, so it translates into roughly $5 American.
Christian Kirsche: You have some good arguments. However, you did not address the fact that the plans cover Viagra and other drugs associated with sexual choice. Also, the study that suggests that premiums will go up by a dollar may not be completely true -- consider how the insurance company will save money by paying for less births, and less abortions. Just like how welfare saves money by providing birthcontrol! Also, free birthcontrol promotes planned parenthood, which is in the public good. We don't want people having unplanned babies wreaking havoc on homes. Save the babies for when you're ready -- when you're done highschool.
BaByDoLL68
Personally I feel Insurance companies should cover birth control before Pregnancy for one simple reason...the child's sake. The world is overpopulated & there are so many children out there without mothers & father because they werent ready for that responsibility. If ur not ready then dont have sex! I wanna state this is just my opinion, but by raising the cost of giving birth it will make people rethink their plans & will ultimately prevent neglected children. Ive also recently heard parents have numerous children to get more welfare,yet never spend a dime on their children...is this true? thats horrible if it is.
TomBlack
Actually I just read an article that states Europes population is decreasing due to advanced concraceptives and thier uses.
hewie123
The reason i think that Insurance Companies don't cover birth control, is because, if you have a kid, you'll get them insurance from their company, therefore making more money off of you. We all know what Viagra does and what comes after it's use. This is why it is supported.
I think that it's absolutely wrong for insurance plans to not cover birth control. I've done research and found that many plans won't cover birth control, but will cover Viagra! This doesn't make any sense to me.
Consider this:
The average cost of one year of birth control is about $200-$300.
My mother's friend, who recently gave birth, received a bill for her delivery of over $12,000! Luckily, her insurance covered the cost. And this is for normal delivery. Just imagine the cost of C-Sections and other complications that may occur, such as a premature delivery. This also does not include prenatal care.
The cost of a first trimester abortion is about $450.
Why would the insurance companies overlook this? Surely they would rather pay the $200 than have to support a woman through an entire pregnancy! To me, this doesn't make any sense. Insurance companies would obviously save more money by preventing unwanted pregnancies than having to pay for unplanned pregnancies.
There is more information on how to take action at http://web.archive.org/web/20010427111258/http://www.covermypills.org/
What are your thoughts on this?
Christian Kirsche
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Money doesn't grow on trees. You get what you pay for. You can't get something for nothing. How many clichés express this ideal that for everything there is a price? Apparently not enough. Some Americans have yet to realize this commonsensical truth.
Look at the current campaign to make insurance companies pay for contraceptives. Jennifer Erickson, a Seattle pharmacist, has filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit charging that her employer engages in sexual discrimination by not covering contraceptives.
Should insurance cover the "pill"?
The D.C. City Council passed a controversial law July 11 requiring contraceptive coverage. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 24 states have legislation pending that would require contraceptive coverage, and 13 states already have such laws. As of Jan. 1, all federal employees now have contraceptive coverage, thanks to a law Congress passed last year.
Insurance 101
The only conclusion one can take from this is that people are clueless about insurance. The real purpose of private insurance is to spread costs.
The cost of auto repair, for example, can be staggering if you have an accident. Because people do not want to risk being stuck with a huge repair bill all at once, they buy insurance -- meaning they pay the insurance company a premium in exchange for the promise that the company will pay in case of an accident.
This spreads the costs of accidents. You may not have an auto accident during a five-year period, so your premium each year pays for other people's accidents. Then if you have a crash in year six, other people's premiums that year pay for your accident. That is what cost-spreading is all about.
But the whole concept of cost-spreading would be destroyed if insurance covered every minor expense. It would be silly for your auto insurance to pay every time you fill your gas tank, for example, or for homeowners' insurance to pay every time you change your light bulb.
Unlike an expensive accident that might occur once every few years, filling your gas tank is such a regular expense that cost-spreading occurs on its own. Having insurance pay for gas would just make your premiums go up, not only by the cost of the gas but also by the cost of all the extra paperwork. Insurance works well only when it covers rare, catastrophic expenses, not when it tries to cover regular small expenses.
Who should pay the bill?
This common sense seems to evaporate, however, when the subject is health insurance. People cannot seem to resist the idea that health insurance should be required to cover everything under the sun, whether it be their teeth cleanings or their sexual apparatus. Because of people's resistance to paying out-of-pocket for any health costs, most health insurance policies already cover regular checkups and even the cheapest drugs, even though adding all those extra levels of paperwork and insurance company employees just makes insurance policies more expensive for everyone. When it comes to health insurance, people think that they can get something for nothing.
Now many want to spread that idea to birth control. If a woman's insurance company pays $25 per month for her contraceptives, there are only two possibilities -- either the insurance company will raise her premium by at least $25 per month (plus extra for administrative costs), or it will raise other people's premiums by some amount. The insurance company is not going to provide contraceptives for free out of the goodness of its heart. The contraceptive campaigners really want the second option: to force people who do not use contraceptives to pay higher premiums.
They often have cited a 1998 study that found that mandating contraceptive coverage would cost about $1.43 per month per person, compared with the current out-of-pocket cost of $25 per month per contraceptive user. If an average cost of $25 per month per user drops to $1.43, that can only mean that a whole lot of people who do not use contraceptives are going to pay higher insurance premiums.
That seems strikingly unfair. Many people of childbearing age do not use contraceptives because they actually want (believe it or not) to have children, or because they are infertile, or because of religious objections to contraceptives, or because they are unmarried devout Christians, Muslims or Jews. Why should any of these people be forced to pay higher insurance premiums so contraceptive users can get a free ride?
A matter for the individual
Then there is the idea that women are being treated unfairly. According to an AP report, Chris Charbonneau, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Western Washington, said that policies that do not include contraceptives force women to pay 68% more out of pocket than men for health care. Thus, Planned Parenthood argues, because women currently buy most of the contraceptives, men should have to pay as well.
This idea is faulty for two reasons. First, it would not work, because insurance companies would just raise rates for women. After all, it is legal for insurance companies to charge different rates based on gender in some cases (as they do for auto insurance for teenage males). Second, even if it did work, shouldn't individual couples pay for contraception on their own?
If a woman cannot afford to buy contraceptives every month, why doesn't she ask her partner to kick in some money or wear a condom? Do we really need the government to step in and tell people how to pay for such a private matter?
If the contraceptive campaigners have their way, no one in America can escape paying for contraceptives. The government will, by the force of law, require everyone to pay for other people's sexual choices. Could anything be more senseless?
Stuart Buck is a recent honors graduate of Harvard Law School and a PubliusFellow of the Claremont Institute.
muftak57
Sorry Morgan, but the article posted by CK is correct in EVERY point.
The idea behind insurance is, as he say, cost-spreading.
All those years you pay premiums and don't use them in essence, count as "credit" that you are "saving up" for when you do have a big medical bill.
The money isn't going to come from nowhere.
And, quite simply, contraception is NOT a health issue in over 99% of women. Plain and simple.
There is no medical "problem" with pregnancy, it is natural. It doesn't require administration by a doctor (merely a visit for the prescription) to be on the pill.
Also, as stated, making others pay for your contraceptive choice is ethically unfair.
If I were a devout Catholic, I would likely be enraged that money from my premiums was going towards paying for a sinful thing.
You talk about how cheap they are. Well, for starters, you can get them even cheaper at Planned Parenthood.
kuju get's them at PP for about $7 a pack instead of $30.
$7 is one hour's work at minimum wage. If you can't afford that, frankly, you shouldn't be having sex.
Even the full price is only a day's wages part time.
Now, as for Viagra.
Viagra is a treatment for a medical condition. Impotence.
Impotence, unlike fertility, is not normal bodily functioning.
Sorry about this babe... I'm all in favor of accessable contraception for all, but there are limits.
As for an abortion costing $450...
If you had an abortion EVERY YEAR, I think either your premiums would skyrocket, your plan would be changed to not cover abortions or they would simply cancel your membership.
morganlh85
I agree with both of you; you're right.
My situation, however is somewhat different.
I am on insurance called CHIP - Children's Health Insurance Program for people age 0-19 from low-income families. Most of the families on the plan get the insurance for free. It doesn't cover any birth control unless its needed for another purpose besides birth control. So you can assume that these familes can't afford to pay for birth control; no matter how cheap it is. I know my family can't, and we're not that poor or anything. We just can't afford it. So what are we supposed to do? And the kids from low-income families who end up pregnant are going to end up waaaaaay worse off than pregnant teens from middle or high-class families. These people are even more likely to not seek proper medical care for their unborn child. So, the CHIP people will end up with even more low-income families with children that need insurance that tax-payers in Pennsylvania will have to pay for. That money doesn't come out of nowhere either. It comes from taxes.
kuju
haha... I was reading through this and I'm was all ready ti say "But I get mine from PPH for $7... but Muftak already did. Humph! taking words out of my mouth... again!
Trick#1 for getting free birth control. Claim irregular and painful periods. Bad cramps. etc. this IS a medical condition as birth control pills will regulate your period and are said to relieve cramps and PMS. medical insurance often covers that.
PPH is also a good idea.
but I agree with Muftak when he says that if he were a devout Christian, he would be pissed that his money was going towards something that is against his belief. Though I am certainly not a devout Christian. And neither is he I believe. everyone here knows that we are faithful follwers of Santaism... right Muftak? MILK AND COOKIES!
but seriously. Try to find your nearest PPH clinic. From my experiences, they're useful and wonderful.
muftak57
This makes things a wee bit different.
I believe such a plan should cover contraceptives.
I'm on welfare here. So I get free premiums for the provincial medical plan.
Not only that, but I get extended benifits, including glasses, some dental, almost all prescriptons.
And birth control. Pills or Depo-provera. Your choice.
Welfare does this for a very cost efficient reason, in essence.
The cost per month to them for cover birth control is $30 or less.
The increse in welfare benefits for another kid are $50 a month prenatal allowance then a total increase of almost $200 (at least. Over $500 for a first child) once the child is born.
So, from a strictly budgetary view (which is welfare's preferred view) handing out free birth control is an excellent plan.
Free birth control for teens is especially important... the teen pregnancy rate continues to skyrocket.
Cover your pills? Yes.
Cover working adult's pills? No.
TomBlack
Darn it, my medical coverage should include condoms too! Seriously, the same logic can be applied here. For a mere $12 for a box of 36 (?) I could go a whole month with a pop per day.
Now I agree about the whole having a child will only cost the insurance company as they will be shelling out money to have the kid and to take of the kid.
On the other side as muftak57 said,
"$7 is one hour's work at minimum wage. If you can't afford that, frankly, you shouldn't be having sex."
I understand that not everyone in the world is well off (My family isnt rolling around in mounds of money either) but accidents still happen and you will still need to be dealing with a child.
I also must add that your BF should be wearing a condom, on the pill or no.
STD's are still a consideration and no matter how much some will say that their partner would always be faithful, there is still a posibility that they could cheat, catch something and give it to you.
sweetpea
Where is $7 minimum wage? Minimum wage here is $5.75. Hahaha safe to say NO ONE with a minimum wage job cou.d have sex by your standards.
TomBlack
Sweetpea - they shouldnt be.
Accidents happen and sometimes some people need to get abortions and that ussually requires $$$
Dante
Federal minimum wage is actually $5.15. For teens under the age of 20 it as low as $4.25 an hour during the first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer. Even with it that low, who couldn't afford either a box of condoms, or a little abstinance.
Moneran
Minimum wage is $6.75 in Ontario. That's in in Canadian dollars, so it translates into roughly $5 American.
Christian Kirsche: You have some good arguments. However, you did not address the fact that the plans cover Viagra and other drugs associated with sexual choice. Also, the study that suggests that premiums will go up by a dollar may not be completely true -- consider how the insurance company will save money by paying for less births, and less abortions. Just like how welfare saves money by providing birthcontrol! Also, free birthcontrol promotes planned parenthood, which is in the public good. We don't want people having unplanned babies wreaking havoc on homes. Save the babies for when you're ready -- when you're done highschool.
BaByDoLL68
Personally I feel Insurance companies should cover birth control before Pregnancy for one simple reason...the child's sake. The world is overpopulated & there are so many children out there without mothers & father because they werent ready for that responsibility. If ur not ready then dont have sex! I wanna state this is just my opinion, but by raising the cost of giving birth it will make people rethink their plans & will ultimately prevent neglected children. Ive also recently heard parents have numerous children to get more welfare,yet never spend a dime on their children...is this true? thats horrible if it is.
TomBlack
Actually I just read an article that states Europes population is decreasing due to advanced concraceptives and thier uses.
hewie123
The reason i think that Insurance Companies don't cover birth control, is because, if you have a kid, you'll get them insurance from their company, therefore making more money off of you. We all know what Viagra does and what comes after it's use. This is why it is supported.