91 replies to this topic

[DarthMarley]

I can stipulate medical need for insured persons getting coverage for the pill.

But, in the absence of such a medical need besides contraception, what exactly does the insurance company think they are insuring against? It isn't illness, but mitigating a behavioral risk.

I can agree that contraception is a great thing.
In fact, all fertile women should be on the pill just in case they want to have spontaneous unprotected sex with me at some future time.
But even though it is a great thing, is it something that as a behavioral remedy (people are going to have sex, so we might as well cover it) insurance should be covering, or be forced to cover?

[BklnScott]

In a word: yep.

[Lin731]

Quote

But, in the absence of such a medical need besides contraception, what exactly does the insurance company think they are insuring against? It isn't illness, but mitigating a behavioral risk

They are insuraning against the costs of a hospital say for giving birth (and any number of serious, expensive complications to the baby or mother or both. They are also insuraning against the future costs of that potential child over it's first 18 to 26 years.

[Tricia]

Lin731, on 18 March 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Quote

But, in the absence of such a medical need besides contraception, what exactly does the insurance company think they are insuring against? It isn't illness, but mitigating a behavioral risk

They are insuraning against the costs of a hospital say for giving birth (and any number of serious, expensive complications to the baby or mother or both. They are also insuraning against the future costs of that potential child over it's first 18 to 26 years.

Very true.

The costs of medical care throughout the pregnancy and the birth as well as the first years of  the child's life far outweigh the cost of the birth control.

By not covering birth control, the risk increases of the insurance company having to pay out for those things.  Less profit for the insurance company and their stockholders, higher premiums overall for all customers, etc.  

I don't have any charts comparing rates for insurance with and without birth control coverage but I would think that it should be a higher cost because of the risk factor for those not providing birth control coverage.

Edited by Tricia, 18 March 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[DarthMarley]

Sure, women not getting pregnant is cheaper than paying for pregnancies.
Not all policies cover pregnancies though.
Should pregnancies be an insurable risk if the insured is not trying to avoid pregnancy?
Think about how your driving record affects your auto insurance rate.

Or do you favor a case in which women can insist on both BC coverage from the insurer, and full coverage for the pregnancy and childbirth if they decide not to take them?

[Lin731]

Quote

Or do you favor a case in which women can insist on both BC coverage from the insurer, and full coverage for the pregnancy and childbirth if they decide not to take them?

Why apply that simply to women? Inless we're all giving birth to the baby Jesus, these children have fathers as well, shall we make a rider for that as well? Afterall they helped create the child in question and clearly they weren't using condoms (which btw are far cheaper then the pill) and also offer protection against many far more expensive medical bills like treatment for aids, infertility issues from untreated veneral diseases etc... See we can dine on this all day and still have a mouthful to chew.

[Nonny]

I am laughing so hard, I wonder how I'm able to type!  

‘Lady business’ activism floods Va. Republicans’ Facebook pages

Quote

Virginia seems to have ushered in a new protest genre: the gynecological overshare.

Virginia Republicans who helped pass a law requiring women to get an ultrasound before an abortion found their political Facebook pages flooded this week with the kind of information normally reserved for the ob/gyn....

[sierraleone]

^ thanks for that Nonny!

[Nonny]

^You're welcome!  I'm still laughing.  

[Rhea]

DarthMarley, on 17 March 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

I can stipulate medical need for insured persons getting coverage for the pill.

But, in the absence of such a medical need besides contraception, what exactly does the insurance company think they are insuring against? It isn't illness, but mitigating a behavioral risk.

I can agree that contraception is a great thing.
In fact, all fertile women should be on the pill just in case they want to have spontaneous unprotected sex with me at some future time.
But even though it is a great thing, is it something that as a behavioral remedy (people are going to have sex, so we might as well cover it) insurance should be covering, or be forced to cover?

We cover other forms of birth control like vasectomies and tube tying. Don't you think it's a little strange we deny coverage for other forms of b.c.?

And pregnancy is NOT A DISEASE - yet it is covered. Hypocritical, much?

[psycaz]

It is the choice of the insurance company and the company sponsoring the policy to decide what will and won't be covered. Those inclusions/exclusions determine the price of said policy.

Doesn't matter if it's McDonalds or Georgetown University.

If it ain't covered, suck it up and do what the rest of us do - pay for it if you need it. Find another way to get a better price if you can.

[Cheile]

Rhea, on 19 March 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

DarthMarley, on 17 March 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

I can stipulate medical need for insured persons getting coverage for the pill.

But, in the absence of such a medical need besides contraception, what exactly does the insurance company think they are insuring against? It isn't illness, but mitigating a behavioral risk.

I can agree that contraception is a great thing.
In fact, all fertile women should be on the pill just in case they want to have spontaneous unprotected sex with me at some future time.
But even though it is a great thing, is it something that as a behavioral remedy (people are going to have sex, so we might as well cover it) insurance should be covering, or be forced to cover?

We cover other forms of birth control like vasectomies and tube tying. Don't you think it's a little strange we deny coverage for other forms of b.c.?

And pregnancy is NOT A DISEASE - yet it is covered. Hypocritical, much?

what Rhea said.

[Themis]

I've never needed it but I don't think I've ever seen an insurance policy that didn't cover childbirth, and I've always been the person at work who could explain the coverage to everyone else.  At one job I actually compared available policies for the company.

[Cheile]

another thought--why shouldn't birth control (whether it's pills or getting one's self fixed) be covered?  in the long run, it's far LESS of an expense than paying for pregnancy, childbirth, and up to 22 years of whatever medical care that child needs.

and in today's overpopulated world, it'd be smarter to assist those who wish to either wait to add to the population AND the childfree who don't want to add to it at all.

but wait...that would be logical.

Edited by Cheile, 19 March 2012 - 11:19 PM.

[DarthMarley]

Many policies may indeed generally cover childbirth, particularly family plans from stable employers.
But in the case of a young uninsured pregnant woman shopping for insurance, they are instead steered to TennCare or whatever the local Medicaid program would be called.
And part of the reason is that you can't insure against an existing condition.

And while birth control is logical (with only some demographic stability qualifiers) logical practices are not necessarily good policy, at least in terms of mandating behavior.
It might be logical to criminalize smoking, but would it go too far?
We could do the same thing regarding non-nutritious luxury foods.
It might seem to be logical to tell people how to live, and make better decisions for them, but who really wants to feel like all their decisions are made for them?

Providing people with a free good also creates problems.

[Lin731]

Quote

It is the choice of the insurance company and the company sponsoring the policy to decide what will and won't be covered. Those inclusions/exclusions determine the price of said policy.

Doesn't matter if it's McDonalds or Georgetown University.

If it ain't covered, suck it up and do what the rest of us do - pay for it if you need it. Find another way to get a better price if you can.

Because it's discrimination against women to cover a vasectomy and not the pill. Because it singles out one gender for unequal treatment. Why should my husbands vasectomy be covered but not the pill? If I am paying into my coverage every week (which most of us do when on an employers insurance plan) why should my male coworkers have coverage for vanity drugs such as Rogaine or viagra, yet something as critical as contraception for women, NOT be covered? It's sexist, IMO, plain and simple.

Quote

It might seem to be logical to tell people how to live, and make better decisions for them, but who really wants to feel like all their decisions are made for them?

Which is percisely why so many women are fed up with these attempts to legislate their wombs. I should be able to decide what is in my best interests in that regard, not some dusty old man who thinks women belong in the kitchen cooking him his dinner and cleaning his house. We would never have this conversation about men's reproductive rights would we? Men wouldn't stand for someone telling them if they could have a vasectomy or not.

[Cheile]

Lin731, on 21 March 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

Quote

It is the choice of the insurance company and the company sponsoring the policy to decide what will and won't be covered. Those inclusions/exclusions determine the price of said policy.

Doesn't matter if it's McDonalds or Georgetown University.

If it ain't covered, suck it up and do what the rest of us do - pay for it if you need it. Find another way to get a better price if you can.

Because it's discrimination against women to cover a vasectomy and not the pill. Because it singles out one gender for unequal treatment. Why should my husbands vasectomy be covered but not the pill? If I am paying into my coverage every week (which most of us do when on an employers insurance plan) why should my male coworkers have coverage for vanity drugs such as Rogaine or viagra, yet something as critical as contraception for women, NOT be covered? It's sexist, IMO, plain and simple.

bolding mine....nailed it in one.

[scherzo]

Quote

Because it's discrimination against women to cover a vasectomy and not the pill. Because it singles out one gender for unequal treatment. Why should my husbands vasectomy be covered but not the pill?

Lin the female version of vasectomy is tubal ligation not the pill. Is it completely outside the realm of possibility that insurance companies DON'T value the lives of men more than women? That maybe there are other, hate-free reasons, why everything under the sun isn't covered by a particular policy? What would motivate a man...to want other MEN...to have better lives than women? So much so that they organize their businesses to deliberately make the world a terrible place to be female?

[Cheile]

scherzo, on 21 March 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

Quote

Because it's discrimination against women to cover a vasectomy and not the pill. Because it singles out one gender for unequal treatment. Why should my husbands vasectomy be covered but not the pill?

Lin the female version of vasectomy is tubal ligation not the pill. Is it completely outside the realm of possibility that insurance companies DON'T value the lives of men more than women? That maybe there are other, hate-free reasons, why everything under the sun isn't covered by a particular policy? What would motivate a man...to want other MEN...to have better lives than women? So much so that they organize their businesses to deliberately make the world a terrible place to be female?

just curious, scherzo--you do know that it's a LOT easier for men to get fixed then it is for women, right?  especially childfree women?  now, some childfree men have issues getting fixed because doctors assume they HAVE to father at least one child, but it's fewer and farther between.  

women, on the other hand?  whether or not they have kids, they're constantly denied the right to choose to have themselves fixed--because they will "change their minds" or they "are too young" or whatever other b*llsh*t reason the doctor can dream up to deny them.  which is complete and utter b*llsh*t.  whether they are 18 or 80, if they are willing to sign that paperwork that states in big red letters at ten or twelve places that YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS A PERMANENT PROCEDURE*, then they should be allowed to have it done.  

and it should not matter whether the person in question is childfree or competing with the Duggars.

so yes, it IS just another form of discrimination.  why should men have it so much easier to get themselves sexually satisfied (whether it's Viagra or being fixed if they don't want children/anymore children), yet they're trying to screw with the rights of women for the same thing?

* - this is how i've been told it is actually printed on the forms by friends who have had tubals, complete with all those font settings.

[DarthMarley]

Why should insurance cover any elective procedure?