Why is birth control coverage such a contentious subject? (racism, federal government, states)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's for sure. I've never understood why Viagra is covered and birth control not, though I can probably guess.
huh??
I've seen plenty of insurance were viagra was NOT covered
but nearly EVERY insurance company covers the pill
some may not cover the pill YOU WANT....there are literly 100's of different variieties of the birth control pill....it all depends who they are contracted with
But IT IS A MEDICAL CONDITION that requires treatment. It can be life-threatening. It does permanently change the woman physically. It is often accompanied by sickness and disease. Women do lose days of work due to pregnancy. And pregnancy has consequences. Duh!!!!!!
The "Duh!!!!" here is trying to equate the effects of pregnancy with a desire to not want to get pregnant and an unwillingness to bear the costs of that desire yourself. The effects of pregnancy are already covered, and not in dispute. The dispute revolves around the desire to not become pregnant itself being treated as a medical condition.
If I get a severe sunburn, then medical costs to treat that burn will be covered. However, me buying suntan lotion is not covered. "I want to lie around in the sun" is not a medical condition.
That's what's going on here. "I don't want to get pregnant" is a choice. It is not itself a condition. When you have the condition, then any medical issues surrounding that condition will be covered. But when the condition itself is not a malady, then it doesn't make sense that you get free birth control for it paid for by the premiums by other citizens so that you can choose to engage in the activity which produces that condition. You can't say since being overweight can lead to health problems, I expect other people to buy me a lifetime membership in weight watchers. If you aren't paying for their suntan lotion, then they shouldn't have to pay for your birth control.
Mandating that birth control come with no copay is unrelated to insurance companies not wanting to pay claims. This isn't about insurance companies not wanting to cover birth control, this is about saying they have to cover it without a copay.
If it costs the ins. co. too much, they'll raise the premium.
I want to get an erection and be able to have sex is a medical condition?
Yes it is. That's not a valid comparison. The comparison would be between prophylactics and BC, not between Viagra and BC. You can still have sex without birth control. If you don't want to get pregnant as a result of that sex, then that's your choice. It's a whole different issue. With BC you are trying to prevent your body from behaving in a healthy manner it is designed to do. With Viagra you are trying to enable your body to behave in a healthy manner it was designed to do, but cannot. Completely opposite.
If it costs the ins. co. too much, they'll raise the premium.
Which then instead of the insurance company bearing the cost causes the other premium paying clients of the company to bear that cost. It's still subsidizing the choice of the woman instead of having her pay for her own choices. The cost of the copay is still there and still getting paid, and still getting paid by someone else other than the person receiving the medicine. There is no legitimate reason to mandate other people to pay your copays for you without you having any demonstrated inability to pay them yourself. Such as what I said earlier about a high paid female manager getting birth control paid for with the premiums of her low paid subordinates.
The core of the argument. It's their FAULT, they deserve to be punished.
No, that's just shaming tactics. It's the old "support Obama or you're a racist" argument.
It's their choice, and they should bear the costs of making that choice since they are the ones making it. There's no fault, and no punishment. Buying your own birth control so you can have sex is not being punished. Having someone else buy your birth control so you can have sex is punishing them.
If it were just woman's sexual behavior, there wouldn't be any need for a contraceptive. But since there is a man involved, then a contraceptive is needed to avoid pregnancy. Something that generally BOTH the man and the woman involved want to avoid. Moreover, contraceptives are often prescribed to treat medical issues, and have little to do with a woman's sexual behavior.
Whether or not a man is involved in the sexual intercourse is irrelevant. It is still the woman's choice to engage in that intercourse. And even if you do fraudulently include the man as somehow responsible for what the woman does, it still doesn't change the essential situation. You are then just asking others pay to pay for what they do instead of what she does. It's still making other people responsible for subsidizing their behavior.
Since using birth control would minimize the demand for abortion, you'd think the anti-abortion folks would see that it should be readily available to all women. Yet they oppose birth control in addition to abortion. They never explain the contradiction.
Because there is no contradiction. That logic is simply trying to force people to accept what you want. There is no requirement to get an abortion or requirement to have sex. Therefore, there is no requirement that someone who opposes abortion make contraceptives freely available. If I oppose you being free to not pay your mortgage, that doesn't mean I have to support you robbing a bank to get the money to pay it. People are responsible for their own behavior.
Which then instead of the insurance company bearing the cost causes the other premium paying clients of the company to bear that cost. It's still subsidizing the choice of the woman instead of having her pay for her own choices. The cost of the copay is still there and still getting paid, and still getting paid by someone else other than the person receiving the medicine. There is no legitimate reason to mandate other people to pay your copays for you without you having any demonstrated inability to pay them yourself. Such as what I said earlier about a high paid female manager getting birth control paid for with the premiums of her low paid subordinates.
1. So it all comes down to an anti-woman issue.
2. Isn't the woman paying the premium?
This isn't even about co-pays. Prior to this new requirement, most insurances paid for BC with a co-pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Whether or not a man is involved in the sexual intercourse is irrelevant. It is still the woman's choice to engage in that intercourse. And even if you do fraudulently include the man as somehow responsible for what the woman does, it still doesn't change the essential situation. You are then just asking others pay to pay for what they do instead of what she does. It's still making other people responsible for subsidizing their behavior.
You're digging yourself in deeper with this anti-woman stuff of yours. You've never heard of being coerced into sex? And I'm not talking about rape, I'm talking about 'If you loved me you'd do it", and "we're going to get married some day, why not start now?", etc. I once saw a TV show about the lines guys use on women to have sex with them, right out the horse's, er, mouth!
Last edited by CaseyB; 03-07-2013 at 03:42 PM..
Reason: language
The company isn't asking the insurance company to not pay for birth control. They are asking the insurance company to not cover certain medications. Period. Doesn't matter what the prescription is for, if it is a medication on the list the company doesn't want to cover, then it's not covered.
Most insurance doesn't cover all medications, even for some pretty serious conditions.
Health care is in a sad state no doubt. This mandate for bc just seems frivolous when people who have major diseases cannot get their meds and some will die.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
