Pregnancy insurance. Stupid idea or brilliant solution? (injection, Obama, dollars)

[smartalx]

Originally Posted by Dorthy

I don't think this would work. Most people who get pregnant unexpectedly are of the mindset that something like that would never happen to them.

BECAUSE they have been sold on the idea that contraceptives are 100% effective.

Many of the people who have unplanned pregnancies either don't use any birth control whatsoever or don't use birth control properly (for example, they forget to take the pill everyday or put the condom on incorrectly or are a few days late in getting their next depo shot, etc.

And contraceptives like implanon would fix this in the vast number of cases. And even perfect use for most of the contraceptives is not 100%. Implanon is still the highest.

I dont' see very many people signing up for this type of insurance since they don't think that they will get pregnant in the first place and are not going to be willing to shell out $50/month for something that they don't think will effect them in the first place.

Re-read the OP. It's going to be much much less than $50 a month.

I also don't see many parents of teenagers paying for this since a lot of parents can't even fathom the idea that their teenagers may be sexually active in the first place.

I agree. But many "responsible" parents put their daughters on birth control. If they are smart they'll at least get in implanon implant for the daughter.

I think it'd be much wiser to properly and thoroughly educate people on contraceptive methods and use. I also think that access to contraception should be easily available for those who want it.

Just as it's supposed to be unrealistic for us to expect people to turn to abstinence, I think it's unrealistic to expect the numbers of people who use contraceptives properly to increase, and in so doing, drive the real-world efficacies of contraceptives closer to their perfect use number.

There MUST be an incentive to get the most people to use these highly effective forms of contraceptives IN COMBINATION. It's not enough for women to use implanon. BOTH women AND men must use a contraceptive to get the numbers down.

AND we can NOT ignore the children who are STILL conceived! This is why I advocate a $20 a month insurance premium. That way the few children who are conceived won't be aborted. They'll be cared for. And they may even have a free college education.

[Sabinerose]

Interesting idea, but there are tons of issues that would have to be resolved before it would ever be accepted by the general population...

What about those of us woman that are still in the "child-bearing age" pool, but who's husbands have had vasectomies? Technically, I am unable to conceive because my husband is sterile... however, we all know that there are woman out there who aren't faithful in their relationships. I would refuse to pay for pregnancy insurance at this point in my life, knowing that I will not be having anymore children... but what about my neighbor who is sleeping around on her sterile husband and gets pregnant?

You are offering "free" care of the first 18 years of a child's life through this insurance (?). That's what it sounds like to me anyway. So, what's the "punishment" to me if I pay the insurance for a few months and then get pregnant on purpose? What's the downside for me? I just got free care for a child I wanted, but am going to claim was an accident.

There are many women who cannot take hormonal suppliments. What kind of positive birth control can be offered to them that will make them still eligible for the insurance? I shouldn't be punished with higher rates because I am unable to take a hormonal form of birth control.

[smartalx]

Originally Posted by Annie53

You are forgetting one thing here. It isn't always about the money. Many women do not want to go through a pregnancy, I am one of them. You could literally offer me millions of dollars to continue a pregnancy and adopt it out......I would refuse. Women would still need abortion as a choice.

I know. So you wouldn't get the insurance. But a LOT of women would. I know it wouldn't eliminate abortions. It would eliminate the financial reasons for abortion, or at least reduce the cost down to something manageable, and smart.

I think if this happens, people will eventually think it's "smart" to get it, just like people think it's "smart" to pay that additional $5 a month to get uninsured/underinsured protection added to your auto-insurance premium. I think a lot of men will get it and I think the only women who won't will be people like you who say "if I get pregnant I AM aborting." And women like you don't make up the majority. Remember my poll? The majority of women were still against abortion, even for themselves.

[Sabinerose]

Gotta be honest here, I would not get Implanon for my teenage daughter. After reading all the side effects and warnings; there is no way I would get this for my daughter.

Pediatric Use

Safety and efficacy of IMPLANONâ„¢ have been established in women of reproductive age. Safety and efficacy are expected to be the same for postpubertal adolescents. However, no clinical studies have been conducted in women less than 18 years of age. Use of this product before menarche is not indicated.

What suggestion do you have for sexually active teens under the age of 18 that will still allow them to qualify for the insurance?

[smartalx]

Originally Posted by Sabinerose

Interesting idea, but there are tons of issues that would have to be resolved before it would ever be accepted by the general population...

Sure sure. But it's only been half a day since this idea was made public. Give it time. I'll bet the problems could be managed.

What about those of us woman that are still in the "child-bearing age" pool, but who's husbands have had vasectomies?

Look at the efficacy chart.
Table of Contraceptive Efficacy

Vasectomies are not 100% effective. Implanon is even more effective than vasectomies. Amazing, right?

Technically, I am unable to conceive because my husband is sterile... however, we all know that there are woman out there who aren't faithful in their relationships. I would refuse to pay for pregnancy insurance at this point in my life, knowing that I will not be having anymore children... but what about my neighbor who is sleeping around on her sterile husband and gets pregnant?

As I said to Annie53 , stupid people still do stupid things. All we can do is try to mitigate the problems as much as possible for the smart people. And I'm not an insurance expert. I'm not in the industry. I'm not anywhere close to a mathematician nor a statistician. So of course these people would be the ones designing the plans and crunching the numbers to see if this idea really is feasible.

You are offering "free" care of the first 18 years of a child's life through this insurance (?). That's what it sounds like to me anyway.

Yep.

So, what's the "punishment" to me if I pay the insurance for a few months and then get pregnant on purpose? What's the downside for me? I just got free care for a child I wanted, but am going to claim was an accident.

I know the OP was long so I forgive you for not reading the whole thing. You can't "get pregnant on purpose" because as a requirement to get the insurance you have to get an implanon implant. Your coverage doesn't begin until the doctor performs the procedure.

There are many women who cannot take hormonal suppliments. What kind of positive birth control can be offered to them that will make them still eligible for the insurance? I shouldn't be punished with higher rates because I am unable to take a hormonal form of birth control.

They can use other methods and pay higher premiums because their contraceptive isn't as effective. Admittedly these women are likely to remain uncovered (largely because they could in theory do as you mentioned above - try to cheat the system) but these women are not as common as the women who can take hormonal contraceptives. The purpose is to decrease the numbers of pregnancies drastically, and covering the children who do come as a result. Eliminating pregnancies is unlikely.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by smartalx

I think if this happens, people will eventually think it's "smart" to get it, just like people think it's "smart" to pay that additional $5 a month to get uninsured/underinsured protection added to your auto-insurance premium.

See, here's the problem: You can get the almost fool-proof combo of hormonal BC for the woman, condom for the man, at a ridiculously low cost, right now. And lots of people still don't. Shortsightedness, lack of funds, lack of planning, lack of willingness to consider the option of having sex ("I'm a good girl!"), lack of education - it's not happening way too often.

Does anyone think that people who can't plan ahead to buy condoms will plan to purchase insurance? Does anyone think that those ashamed to get BC will go get an insurance policy? I don't even want to think about the parents arguing for abstinence-only education who'll be forced to deal with the fact that their little virgin daughters may be doing the nasty.

Anyway, if the cost is as negligible as described, run it over the taxes instead.

[Dorthy]

Originally Posted by smartalx

BECAUSE they have been sold on the idea that contraceptives are 100% effective.

Education would help them to understand the efficacy rates better as well as educate them on how to use the contraceptive properly as there is a huge difference in effectiveness when contraception is used perfectly.

And contraceptives like implanon would fix this in the vast number of cases. And even perfect use for most of the contraceptives is not 100%. Implanon is still the highest.

Implanon is a hormonal form of birth control. Many hormonal forms of birth control come with side effects and many women refuse to use them for that reason. Have you ever taken a hormonal form of birth control? I have and I would never do it again. Ever!

I agree. But many "responsible" parents put their daughters on birth control. If they are smart they'll at least get in implanon implant for the daughter.

Most parents are in denial about this. A small percentage might be interested.

Just as it's supposed to be unrealistic for us to expect people to turn to abstinence, I think it's unrealistic to expect the numbers of people who use contraceptives properly to increase, and in so doing, drive the real-world efficacies of contraceptives closer to their perfect use number.

Yeah. they are probably both somewhat unrealistic. The urge to have sex is biological and kicks in during the teenage years. The stigma associated with having sex as a teen (coming from adults) is a big enough barrier for teens to access birth control and to get educated on how to actually use it properly.

There MUST be an incentive to get the most people to use these highly effective forms of contraceptives IN COMBINATION. It's not enough for women to use implanon. BOTH women AND men must use a contraceptive to get the numbers down.

Again, hormonal methods aren't the best thing for many women. What is the incentive for men to use birth control? Sure some responsible ones would but there are many men who won't because they have the option of walking away if they don't want to care for the baby.

AND we can NOT ignore the children who are STILL conceived! This is why I advocate a $20 a month insurance premium. That way the few children who are conceived won't be aborted. They'll be cared for. And they may even have a free college education.

I really don't think that will be enough to cover the costs. Insurance companies will want to make a profit on this. Did you factor that in? What about people who buy the insurance and then get pregnant on purpose? What about people who can afford to raise a child but just don't want to do it?

[smartalx]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

See, here's the problem: You can get the almost fool-proof combo of hormonal BC for the woman, condom for the man, at a ridiculously low cost, right now. And lots of people still don't.

Right. Then provide incentives. There aren't any incentives now. None, aside from the APPARENT assurance that you "will not get pregnant."

Shortsightedness, lack of funds, lack of planning, lack of willingness to consider the option of having sex ("I'm a good girl!"), lack of education - it's not happening way too often.

And what is YOUR solution to the problem? Education isn't working. It's been tried for the last 20 years. Still 2.5 million women are conceiving even though they are using contraceptives and still over 1 million children each year are being aborted. We need to get these people to use the best contraceptive that they can use. So we need to provide incentives.

Does anyone think that people who can't plan ahead to buy condoms will plan to purchase insurance?

I do. And the contraceptives that go along with this insurance raise the efficacy from ~85% to over 99.9995%

Does anyone think that those ashamed to get BC will go get an insurance policy?

Maybe not. But as people mature and get smart and are encouraged with advertising and public acceptance, these people will gradually turn around.

I don't even want to think about the parents arguing for abstinence-only education who'll be forced to deal with the fact that their little virgin daughters may be doing the nasty.

Obviously they won't be getting this insurance. But they aren't the majority.

Anyway, if the cost is as negligible as described, run it over the taxes instead.

And get the government involved... FORCING people to get implants? No thank you.

You raise some good questions. I'm glad to hear them because they are going to be very common if more and more people find out about this idea.

Bring on more questions everyone! Shoot my idea down!

[smartalx]

Originally Posted by Dorthy

Education would help them to understand the efficacy rates better as well as educate them on how to use the contraceptive properly as there is a huge difference in effectiveness when contraception is used perfectly.

We've been trying that already for the past 20+ years. It's not working.

Implanon is a hormonal form of birth control. Many hormonal forms of birth control come with side effects and many women refuse to use them for that reason. Have you ever taken a hormonal form of birth control? I have and I would never do it again. Ever!

I know. But a lot of women still do use them. If they don't then they don't get covered. It's as simple as that. Or perhaps there could be a higher cost insurance for women who want to use other methods.

Most parents are in denial about this. A small percentage might be interested.

The "most parents" that you are referring to wouldn't even get the pill for their daughters. Those who do would be smart to get implanon and the insurance to go along with it.

Yeah. they are probably both somewhat unrealistic. The urge to have sex is biological and kicks in during the teenage years. The stigma associated with having sex as a teen (coming from adults) is a big enough barrier for teens to access birth control and to get educated on how to actually use it properly.

Agreed.

Again, hormonal methods aren't the best thing for many women. What is the incentive for men to use birth control? Sure some responsible ones would but there are many men who won't because they have the option of walking away if they don't want to care for the baby.

Well, this would have to be explored because the entire system is dependent on the men getting involved too. But remember, it's not even been a day since I made this idea public. I'm sure some incentives could be made attractive enough because men's effect on the numbers is absolutely insane.

I really don't think that will be enough to cover the costs.

You know how they say some numbers are so vast you can't comprehend them? Like imagine how utterly laaarge the entire universe is. It's incomprehensible to us little humans. So I think a similar effect is happening here. You are so sold on the idea that pregnancy happens so often you can't fathom the notion that it can just about be eradicated if we get enough people to use these contraceptives. Really, if women use implanon and men use a 99% effective contraceptive, 840* No... 210 of over 43,000,000 women will become pregnant each year. Incomprehensible! Seems completely impossible. But if we are to believe contraceptive efficacies, and my math skills, then they really are this low. And that being the case, 50,000 - 100,000 policy-holders will together be paying the cost of ONE single child each year.

You know, I think that these low numbers might be the most damaging and biggest hurtle to seeing this idea made reality. It's like voting. Many people think "my little vote won't make a difference." But each vote is important. And each pregnancy insurance policy-holder is important. But we humans are so small-minded we are quite likely to think we aren't important, and might not buy the insurance as a result. This would definitely have to be addressed with advertising and marketing.

Insurance companies will want to make a profit on this. Did you factor that in?

Yeah I know. I hate insurance companies. But if they solve this problem, I'll support them. Of course I factored in profit. If it costs 21 cents a month to provide for each child and each policy-holder is paying $20 a month, you tell me! Are the insurance companies profiting? Hmmm???? They are getting a 9500% return. Frankly I'll be surprised if I don't get a frikking reward by the insurance companies for imagining this whole thing up.

What about people who buy the insurance and then get pregnant on purpose?

Already been discussed. Impossible. They would have to get the implant removed first, then have it reinserted after they get pregnant. It would show. Or they would have to bribe a doctor. Insurance fraud happens today, but I think it's easier to fake a car wreck today than it will be for women to trick the insurance company into paying for their children.

What about people who can afford to raise a child but just don't want to do it?

Already been discussed. They won't get insurance. But they aren't the majority.

*Actually, my math WAS wrong. I was too pessimistic. It's not 2 children who are born to every 1000 women. It's ONE child born to every TWO thousand women who use implanon. So divide the 840 by 4. 210.

[smartalx]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

See, here's the problem: You can get the almost fool-proof combo of hormonal BC for the woman, condom for the man, at a ridiculously low cost,

Oh I forgot... Implanon right now costs between $400 and $800. That's hardly a ridiculously low cost.

It works for 3 years. $800/36 = $22.22 a month. Still not ridiculously low.

But if you have this pregnancy insurance, considering the huge numbers of policy-holders getting this contraceptive, I'm absolutely POSITIVE that the drug companies would drop this cost down to $5 to $10 a month.

Now you are talking. So you tell me... you can get an implanon implant for $22 a month without pregnancy coverage, or you can get pregnancy insurance THAT INCLUDES the implant for $20 a month. You pay less for what you want and it INCLUDES additional coverage. Which is the smart choice?

Insurance companies and drug companies would go for it specifically because it's so attractive that millions of women will want to get on board. They are almost guaranteed huge profits.