• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Contraceptive Recommendation Creates New Controversy for Health Care Law

Deuce said:
How much do unwanted pregnancies add to the cost of insurance/tax burden for everyone?
Click to expand...

If someone wasn't motivated enough to get cheap/free birth control before, how reliable do you think they will be to actually use it?

Not to mention that it's pretty gender discriminatory, why not free birth control for men too?
I mean they made it illegal for insurance companies to practice gender price discrimination.
 
tessaesque said:
I pay my perscription co-pay for birth control. Yaz has a generic (though there's a lawsuit..the generic wasn't supposed to release until late 2012..but whatever) so I pay $15 instead of paying $25 for a name brand. I've been covered by BCBS, United Healthcare, Aetna, and one other I can't remember now and all of them treated birth control as a normal perscription. Some of them even allowed the yearly woman's exam to be performed w/no copay for the doctor's visit.

For other forms of birth control (Mirena, Nuvaring, the patch, etc) there are no generics. Mirena requires that you undergo an extensive procedure, so it's a bit more expensive because of that. Nuvaring was $25/month for me, no idea on the patch because I never tried it.

Can't answer #2 without lots of googling. :(
Click to expand...

Don't forget Depo Provara, 1 shot every 3 months, ranging from $30-$75.
Depending on how the side effects, effect you, it is another viable and already affordable solution.

This is being done as a cheap political ploy towards women voters.
They think you're stupid.
 
winston53660 said:
I don't know are there maternity cost going to go down?
Click to expand...

The cost of paying for prenatal care, delivery, and welfare is obviously much higher than paying for birth control. I would support offering people a couple of grand to get a tubal. That would save even more over time. It would be nice if policies focused on long term savings instead of short term gains.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Don't forget Depo Provara, 1 shot every 3 months, ranging from $30-$75.
Depending on how the side effects, effect you, it is another viable and already affordable solution.

This is being done as a cheap political ploy towards women voters.
They think you're stupid.
Click to expand...

I talked to my gyno about the depo shot and she said the MAJORIY of women who get the shot have negative side effects from it. There is also an implant of some sort (not Mirena) another option but once again bad side effects. My nuvaring costs $50 a month and I pay it because I am too forgetful to take a pill everyday. I don't think offering "free" birth control would cost very much. You could do it on need basis if necessary. Either way, just give them the cheapest pill around which is probably $15 without insurance.

The estimated cost of delivery alone is $6,000 – $8,000 for a low risk pregnancy, and the cost increases if it is a high risk pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Birth control pills may be purchased with a prescription at a drugstore or clinic. They cost about $15–$50 a month.
Click to expand...

So assuming the lower cost, you can give 400 women birth control pills(6,000/15) and if it stops one pregnancy it is paid off. That is just the cost of the delivery, not the doctors visits and pre natal care.
 
lovetosing4678 said:
I talked to my gyno about the depo shot and she said the MAJORIY of women who get the shot have negative side effects from it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does; including significant bone degeneration. That's what most people don't realize. Birth control isn't simple. It's often expensive, time consuming, inconvenient, and often times medically harmful.

lovetosing4678 said:
There is also an implant of some sort (not Mirena) another option but once again bad side effects. My nuvaring costs $50 a month and I pay it because I am too forgetful to take a pill everyday. I don't think offering "free" birth control would cost very much. You could do it on need basis if necessary. Either way, just give them the cheapest pill around which is probably $15 without insurance.
Click to expand...

Despite using the mini pill (because I breastfed), I became pregnant, likely because I failed to take it exactly the same time each day. A few times I forgot and took it several hours late. I've also tried Implanon. I wont go into the side effects of that.



lovetosing4678 said:
So assuming the lower cost, you can give 400 women birth control pills(6,000/15) and if it stops one pregnancy it is paid off. That is just the cost of the delivery, not the doctors visits and pre natal care.
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense. Some people are so reluctant to help others, they deny even the most sensible compromises.
 
lovetosing4678 said:
I talked to my gyno about the depo shot and she said the MAJORIY of women who get the shot have negative side effects from it. There is also an implant of some sort (not Mirena) another option but once again bad side effects. My nuvaring costs $50 a month and I pay it because I am too forgetful to take a pill everyday. I don't think offering "free" birth control would cost very much. You could do it on need basis if necessary. Either way, just give them the cheapest pill around which is probably $15 without insurance.
Click to expand...

If it's already that cheap, then why aren't these people buying it?
How successful can this be, knowing that it's already cheap and some people aren't using it?


lovetosing4678 said:
So assuming the lower cost, you can give 400 women birth control pills(6,000/15) and if it stops one pregnancy it is paid off. That is just the cost of the delivery, not the doctors visits and pre natal care.
Click to expand...

Based on assumption that it actually stops one unwanted pregnancy, which may not be the case at all.
On the other hand, a lot of women, who already purchased BC, will now get it subsidized without having a premium increase.
At the same time men do not get it but have to pay the same premium.

It's gender discriminatory.
It's a cheap political ploy because women use more medical services than men and are typically more likely to respond to things like this positively, regardless of party affiliation.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If it's already that cheap, then why aren't these people buying it?
How successful can this be, knowing that it's already cheap and some people aren't using it?




Based on assumption that it actually stops one unwanted pregnancy, which may not be the case at all.
On the other hand, a lot of women, who already purchased BC, will now get it subsidized without having a premium increase.
At the same time men do not get it but have to pay the same premium.

It's gender discriminatory.
It's a cheap political ploy because women use more medical services than men and are typically more likely to respond to things like this positively, regardless of party affiliation.
Click to expand...

Men have less responsibility than women to prevent pregnancies. So yeah, we respond positively.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If it's already that cheap, then why aren't these people buying it?
How successful can this be, knowing that it's already cheap and some people aren't using it?




Based on assumption that it actually stops one unwanted pregnancy, which may not be the case at all.
On the other hand, a lot of women, who already purchased BC, will now get it subsidized without having a premium increase.
At the same time men do not get it but have to pay the same premium.

It's gender discriminatory.
It's a cheap political ploy because women use more medical services than men and are typically more likely to respond to things like this positively, regardless of party affiliation.
Click to expand...

Because $15 dollars above the absolutely necessary can just not be in the budget. Or they are not aware of these cheap options. There are several reasons they may not be able to do it.

How could giving 400 women birth control not stop ONE pregnancy? That is just probability. It will even out.

My thought on this is that premiums could go DOWN if less women get pregnant. Therefore your two points about that are irrelevant. I think anyone with a brain and the use of some logic would respond positively to this. I would continue to pay my $50 for my birth control because I am not willing to go to a daily pill. Many women may chose to stay on their preferred pill and therefore would not be contributing to the initial increase of cost. Offer one or two pills that have low side effects and give those to women who need it and cannot afford it. I really do not see a down side and your only point was, it may not stop unwanted pregnancy. PURE statistics man!
 
evanescence said:
Men have less responsibility than women to prevent pregnancies. So yeah, we respond positively.
Click to expand...

That's not true.
Men can prevent pregnancy by using condoms, plus other treatments.

It's a political trick, this is an election season.
Just like when they expanded SCHIP, to people that make up to $80k a year.
Females, regardless of party affiliation approved, even though people who make $80k a year can afford insurance for their children.
 
lovetosing4678 said:
Because $15 dollars above the absolutely necessary can just not be in the budget. Or they are not aware of these cheap options. There are several reasons they may not be able to do it.

How could giving 400 women birth control not stop ONE pregnancy? That is just probability. It will even out.

My thought on this is that premiums could go DOWN if less women get pregnant. Therefore your two points about that are irrelevant. I think anyone with a brain and the use of some logic would respond positively to this. I would continue to pay my $50 for my birth control because I am not willing to go to a daily pill. Many women may chose to stay on their preferred pill and therefore would not be contributing to the initial increase of cost. Offer one or two pills that have low side effects and give those to women who need it and cannot afford it. I really do not see a down side and your only point was, it may not stop unwanted pregnancy. PURE statistics man!
Click to expand...

Logic says that they may not necessarily use the BC, even if it's free.
There is no further information to say that they will.

It's a logical fallacy to say otherwise.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's not true.
Men can prevent pregnancy by using condoms, plus other treatments.

It's a political trick, this is an election season.
Just like when they expanded SCHIP, to people that make up to $80k a year.
Females, regardless of party affiliation approved, even though people who make $80k a year can afford insurance for their children.
Click to expand...

In the overwhelming, vast majority of relationships women are left with the hassle and necessity of using birth control, not the men. People who use condoms are usually the ones sleeping around, and those people are buying protection against STDs as well as unwanted pregnancies.
 
evanescence said:
In the overwhelming, vast majority of relationships women are left with the hassle and necessity of using birth control, not the men. People who use condoms are usually the ones sleeping around, and those people are buying protection against STDs as well as unwanted pregnancies.
Click to expand...

I'll give you the former, however, should we encourage it or should we get more men into being responsible for pregnancy and STD prevention?

I guess we'll disagree on this.
I think it is nothing but a bait for females during an election season.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'll give you the former, however, should we encourage it or should we get more men into being responsible for pregnancy and STD prevention?

I guess we'll disagree on this.
I think it is nothing but a bait for females during an election season.
Click to expand...

Both. As a female, I can attest that birth control is a huge burden to many women. Some women find an effective, convenient birth control, and others can't for medical reasons. Even the women that do find decent birth control are still at risk for medical complications such as a higher risk of heart attacks, clots, cancer, severe weight gain, mood changes, etc. Most men just assume that the woman is ultimately responsible for preventing pregnancies. Then many of those same people refuse to give women the freedom to decide to end the pregnancy because of moral agendas.

There does need to be more birth control methods aimed at men, as well as free birth control, even long term birth control, for women. The only other way of reducing unwanted births is forced sterilization. That would be a disaster.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'll give you the former, however, should we encourage it or should we get more men into being responsible for pregnancy and STD prevention?

I guess we'll disagree on this.
I think it is nothing but a bait for females during an election season.
Click to expand...

Well holy **** - we're not THAT ****ing stupid. I have faith that the majority of women actually seriously consider their political support, views and candidates based on facts, information, reality and a bit of logic and even some common sense.

The subjects of birth control, abortion and other such things don't equate AT ALL in my choosing of candidates - and so on. . . I'm not that trim and stingy with my thought processes.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Well holy **** - we're not THAT ****ing stupid. I have faith that the majority of women actually seriously consider their political support, views and candidates based on facts, information, reality and a bit of logic and even some common sense.
Click to expand...

I did not say all women or any women were stupid.
Don't put words into my mouth.

Aunt Spiker said:
The subjects of birth control, abortion and other such things don't equate AT ALL in my choosing of candidates - and so on. . . I'm not that trim and stingy with my thought processes.
Click to expand...

That's a good thing.
 
evanescence said:
Both. As a female, I can attest that birth control is a huge burden to many women. Some women find an effective, convenient birth control, and others can't for medical reasons. Even the women that do find decent birth control are still at risk for medical complications such as a higher risk of heart attacks, clots, cancer, severe weight gain, mood changes, etc. Most men just assume that the woman is ultimately responsible for preventing pregnancies. Then many of those same people refuse to give women the freedom to decide to end the pregnancy because of moral agendas.
Click to expand...

I understand that.
I do not see how most/all women can't afford to pay for it, when it is already widely affordable.

I do not care if women want abortions, provided that they can pay for themselves or get a charity to pay for it.

evanescence said:
There does need to be more birth control methods aimed at men, as well as free birth control, even long term birth control, for women. The only other way of reducing unwanted births is forced sterilization. That would be a disaster.
Click to expand...

I partially agree.
Condoms are cheap, it's not like it's a budget breaker to get a box.
I'd also like to see more options for birth control for men.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I understand that.
I do not see how most/all women can't afford to pay for it, when it is already widely affordable.

I do not care if women want abortions, provided that they can pay for themselves or get a charity to pay for it.



I partially agree.
Condoms are cheap, it's not like it's a budget breaker to get a box.
I'd also like to see more options for birth control for men.
Click to expand...

The cheaper forms of birth control are often the most inconvenient. And like it or not, that plays a huge role in it's effectiveness.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Logic says that they may not necessarily use the BC, even if it's free.
There is no further information to say that they will.

It's a logical fallacy to say otherwise.
Click to expand...

If they don't use the BC there is no cost. You think the majority of people are going to go to the pharmacy get BC and then throw it out? I don't understand your thought here?
 
This is good policy making. Insurance already distributes the cost over a big group of people (or companies), and birth control pills are made in very cost-effective ways now. Providing free contraception will always help offset the costs of pre-natal and post-natal care. This kind of policy works overseas just as well as it works on American soil. Once unwanted pregnancies and children happen, the system spends far, far more than it would have on prevention.

This will save the government money and save Americans some social turmoil at the same time.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I understand that.
I do not see how most/all women can't afford to pay for it, when it is already widely affordable.

I do not care if women want abortions, provided that they can pay for themselves or get a charity to pay for it.



I partially agree.
Condoms are cheap, it's not like it's a budget breaker to get a box.
I'd also like to see more options for birth control for men.
Click to expand...

I basically don't agree with your qualm. It's true that there is no guarantee that people will use the free birth control, but many will, and that is where the savings come in. I would certainly use free birth control if it were available to me. This doesn't just make fiscal sense, but social sense as well.
 
lovetosing4678 said:
If they don't use the BC there is no cost. You think the majority of people are going to go to the pharmacy get BC and then throw it out? I don't understand your thought here?
Click to expand...

People are not perfectly rational beings.
It's more likely that those who already use BC, will now get it for free and those who didn't before, still won't even with this recommendation because the price of BC was nominal in the first place.
 
Also note, that this won't actually be free.
The cost will be rolled into the monthly premiums of both people who need and don't need BC.

This is part of the reason why insurance costs so much.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
People are not perfectly rational beings.
It's more likely that those who already use BC, will now get it for free and those who didn't before, still won't even with this recommendation because the price of BC was nominal in the first place.
Click to expand...

Once again, you can do it on a need basis. And for the post about insurance premiums. It has been address MANY times.
 
lovetosing4678 said:
Once again, you can do it on a need basis. And for the post about insurance premiums. It has been address MANY times.
Click to expand...

Sure we could, in fact we already do but that is not what the government recommendation is saying.
It's saying all women, not noting income or any need based reason, should get free BC among other things.

What has been addressed?
You pad the insurance plan with benefits, people will necessarily have to pay more, whether or not they actually use those benefits.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Also note, that this won't actually be free.
The cost will be rolled into the monthly premiums of both people who need and don't need BC.

This is part of the reason why insurance costs so much.
Click to expand...


A "LIKE" just wasn't enough for this post Harry. This has to be restated over and over and over again. Where the common fallacy of "FREE" comes from is beyond me. "FREE" in this case you nailed on the head.:rock
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom