Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

Jerry said:

Ms. Fluke is not a teen. She's a grown woman who can pay her own bills.

Click to expand...

she's 30. she's older than I am and I'm a father twice over for cripes sake.

notquiteright said:

Harry-
So no insurance for asthma, diabetes, allergies, migraines, cholesterol, high blood pressure...

Click to expand...

Tell me how maintenance medications are insurable events?

notquiteright said:

Seems an arbitrary line you draw, is it safe to bet your beloved doesn't use birth control?

Click to expand...

How is it arbitrary?
The contraceptives my wife and I use, are not material to this discussion.
We are talking about why insurance companies should/should not cover contraceptives.

P.S.
I can pay for contraceptives without the need of insurance companies buying them for me.
It's not like they're expensive in the first place.
And it's not like my argument is against the use of contraceptives, it's against it being purchased through a 3rd party payer.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Tell me how maintenance medications are insurable events?



How is it arbitrary?
The contraceptives my wife and I use, are not material to this discussion.
We are talking about why insurance companies should/should not cover contraceptives.

P.S.
I can pay for contraceptives without the need of insurance companies buying them for me.
It's not like they're expensive in the first place.
And it's not like my argument is against the use of contraceptives, it's against it being purchased through a 3rd party payer.

Click to expand...

do you support insurance paying for viagra?

randel said:

do you support insurance paying for viagra?

Click to expand...

Depends.
Medication coverage have to pass a few tests, before I can get on board.

1. Is it affordable, without a subsidy or cost sharing arrangement.
2. Is it for treating a real medical condition, (like birth control is with regulating women's periods, making them less painful, etc.)

If it is affordable, insurance shouldn't cover it.
If it isn't for treating a medical condition, insurance should not cover it.

Preventing pregnancy, is not a medical condition.
Birth control is affordable.
It shouldn't be covered, end of story.

Viagra is for treating a medical condition.
If Viagra is similar in cost to birth control, it should not be covered.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Depends.
Medication coverage have to pass a few tests, before I can get on board.

1. Is it affordable, without a subsidy or cost sharing arrangement.
2. Is it for treating a real medical condition, (like birth control is with regulating women's periods, making them less painful, etc.)

If it is affordable, insurance shouldn't cover it.
If it isn't for treating a medical condition, insurance should not cover it.

Preventing pregnancy, is not a medical condition.
Birth control is affordable.
It shouldn't be covered, end of story.

Viagra is for treating a medical condition.
If Viagra is similar in cost to birth control, it should not be covered.

Click to expand...

is pregnancy not a medical issue? so cost is the issue to you?

randel said:

is pregnancy not a medical issue? so cost is the issue to you?

Click to expand...

Pregnancy is actually stupid to cover with insurance, in my opinion.
It's a purposeful medical condition.
Now complications from pregnancy, should be covered.

How can an insurer, insure against you getting pregnant, if you're going to anyway.

The issue is, that insurance is for mitigating risk.
For us, the risk is the cost of getting medical care, for serious, life threatening issues.
Not for every day, easy to afford things like birth control.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Pregnancy is actually stupid to cover with insurance, in my opinion.
It's a purposeful medical condition.
Now complications from pregnancy, should be covered.

How can an insurer, insure against you getting pregnant, if you're going to anyway.

The issue is, that insurance is for mitigating risk.
For us, the risk is the cost of getting medical care, for serious, life threatening issues.
Not for every day, easy to afford things like birth control.

Click to expand...

is not being able to get an erection a life threatening issue, or is it more a 'quality of life' issue? i find it simply amazing that we are willing to pay to help a guy get an erection, but not for the birth control that could prevent a pregnancy that would could arise from said erection....we are willing to pay for a man's pleasure, but not for the medication that would allow allow the woman to enjoy as well without the risk of pregnancy.

Harry I asked because many who argue against insurance coverage of BC don't use it.

As an aside, my wife has used The Pill and we paid out of pocket for it.

Now I asked about the other medications and long term maintenance are routinely covered and don't have the controversy Birth Control does. I don't recall Libertarians making maintenance drugs an issue when it comes to insurance over the years, well not until the focus became birth control coverage at the national level as a matter of Democrat policy.

It is difficult to keep up on the current numbers but at one time 20 states, to include AZ, had some form of mandate requiring insurance companies to provide birth control coverage. State populations being what they are it means roughly 50% of US women have some sort of birth control plan under insurance. So this coverage 'controversy' didn't just suddenly appear.

Hell, I don't recall there being a big fuss over this at all until it became a federal level issue.

Just seems odd that suddenly paying for birth control through insurance is such a philosophical issue when so many other maintenance drugs and healthcare equipment has been routinely covered by insurance.

Oh one other thing- "we can afford it" is highly subjective, that some can afford to pay out of pocket doesn't set the benchmark for a nation.

randel said:

is not being able to get an erection a life threatening issue, or is it more a 'quality of life' issue? i find it simply amazing that we are willing to pay to help a guy get an erection, but not for the birth control that could prevent a pregnancy that would could arise from said erection....we are willing to pay for a man's pleasure, but not for the medication that would allow allow the woman to enjoy as well without the risk of pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Sure it's a quality of life issue.
I have to make compromises for some things, because no one really understands the purpose of insurance and why it shouldn't cover things like birth control or Viagra.
But for the sake of expediency, I accept some medication coverage.

The numbers I looked up show that Viagra costs around $1400 for a 100 count bottle, where the pill is generally $30 a month.
The cost comparison shows that Viagra is not affordable for many people, but birth control is affordable to the vast majority of people.

This is all beside the fact that, insured women tend to be middle or upper income people and they can already afford their birth control.
Which means this is highly unlikely that it will prevent any additional pregnancies.

notquiteright said:

Harry I asked because many who argue against insurance coverage of BC don't use it.

As an aside, my wife has used The Pill and we paid out of pocket for it.

Now I asked about the other medications and long term maintenance are routinely covered and don't have the controversy Birth Control does. I don't recall Libertarians making maintenance drugs an issue when it comes to insurance over the years, well not until the focus became birth control coverage at the national level as a matter of Democrat policy.

It is difficult to keep up on the current numbers but at one time 20 states, to include AZ, had some form of mandate requiring insurance companies to provide birth control coverage. State populations being what they are it means roughly 50% of US women have some sort of birth control plan under insurance. So this coverage 'controversy' didn't just suddenly appear.

Hell, I don't recall there being a big fuss over this at all until it became a federal level issue.

Just seems odd that suddenly paying for birth control through insurance is such a philosophical issue when so many other maintenance drugs and healthcare equipment has been routinely covered by insurance.

Oh one other thing- "we can afford it" is highly subjective, that some can afford to pay out of pocket doesn't set the benchmark for a nation.

Click to expand...

I want insurance to offer more options and choices, so we can have lower premiums for those who want it.
Mandating everything under the sun, only causes premiums to rise.
Sure, in each instance it's only 1% here and there, but 100 1%'s add up.

I want my insurance to not cover, birth control, pregnancy, Viagra, mental health care (not resulting from traumatic brain injury), alcohol and drug abuse, etc.
Why?
Because I have absolutely no need for it and I shouldn't have to pay for it.

Here are some pros to having BC covered under your health insurance plan: Birth control is preventative medicine. Pregnancy is a medical condition which can be accompanied by complications and is a LOT more expensive than birth control, so preventing some pregnancies may actually help. Also, it makes it easier to access for lower income women. Even if it is relatively cheap, why not just have it covered under your health insurance plan that you have to pay for anyway. In the long run, preventing unwanted pregnancies will decrease abortions and some occurrences of child abuse. In the long run, we could save some taxpayer dollars for social service programs that many pregnant women receive.

The only con I have seen mentioned so far is insurance premiums might be more and moral and/or religious objections to it.

ChrisL said:

Here are some pros to having BC covered under your health insurance plan: Birth control is preventative medicine. Pregnancy is a medical condition which can be accompanied by complications and is a LOT more expensive than birth control, so preventing some pregnancies may actually help. Also, it makes it easier to access for lower income women. Even if it is relatively cheap, why not just have it covered under your health insurance plan that you have to pay for anyway. In the long run, preventing unwanted pregnancies will decrease abortions and some occurrences of child abuse. In the long run, we could save some taxpayer dollars for social service programs that many pregnant women receive.

The only con I have seen mentioned so far is insurance premiums might be more and moral and/or religious objections to it.

Click to expand...

You have to show, that adding birth control to insurance, will actually prevent more pregnancies.
Hawaii did this and there was an increase of 300 births.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I want insurance to offer more options and choices, so we can have lower premiums for those who want it.
Mandating everything under the sun, only causes premiums to rise.
Sure, in each instance it's only 1% here and there, but 100 1%'s add up.

I want my insurance to not cover, birth control, pregnancy, Viagra, mental health care (not resulting from traumatic brain injury), alcohol and drug abuse, etc.
Why?
Because I have absolutely no need for it and I shouldn't have to pay for it.

Click to expand...

so, because you have' no need for it', you shouldnt pay for it...you do realize that you are pooled with other people to spread risk around, right? you understand that what you 'need', may be different from others in that risk pool, correct?

Harry Guerrilla said:

You have to show, that adding birth control to insurance, will actually prevent more pregnancies.
Hawaii did this and there was an increase of 300 births.

Click to expand...

Check out this link.

Honolulu Civil Beat - FACT CHECK

Jerry said:

Ms. Fluke is not a teen. She's a grown woman who can pay her own bills.

Click to expand...

Well Jerry, in that particular post I was speaking more generally.

VanceMack said:

Some might make the argument that if the insurance companies (or government) are going to be 'mandated' to provide non-medically indicated birth control, then why not also soap, mouthwash, toothbrushes, dental floss, Q-tips, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, facial scrubs or any other toiletry? Or for that matter...food is pretty 'medically indicated' as a need...why not force coverage of basic food? Also water...shelter....those should be mandated to be covered. And can we go naked? No...of course not...so clothes and shoes. And lets not forget coats in the winter. And since cell phones are so much a part of everyones lives...a basic cellphone with service as well...just the bare essentials.

Birth Control that has been medically prescribed is not even in question and never has been. Ms Fluke made an activist appeal regarding 'birth control' to demonstrate a 'war on women' after the government tried to force the Catholic Church to accept contraceptives. It is still ignored that the whole time the argument was being waged, she herself was COVERED by the Catholic school she was attending for medically prescribed birth control. In essence...she said...hey...this isnt a problem, but pretend it was...now...look how evil those bad republicans are for denying me contraceptives...if they actually did deny me contraceptives. Why it is (or rather would be) a war on women!!

Click to expand...

well those some people would be very stupid IMO lol comparing BC to over the counter items, the slipper slope argument almost never works, reminds me of, if we let women vote whats next, we should let dogs vote. not very convincing and very stupid.

Not saying YOU said any of this just referring to your "some people" comment.

the other stuff I dont care about and really has no impact on my feelings. I think its a good move to cover BC for the reasons I already said and cant come up with any logical ones to oppose it that really mean anything.

any "political" agenda on this front is dumb im just going with common sense

ChrisL said:

Well Jerry, in that particular post I was speaking more generally.

Click to expand...

Try not to make that mistake again.

notquiteright said:

Harry-
So no insurance for asthma, diabetes, allergies, migraines, cholesterol, high blood pressure...

Seems an arbitrary line you draw, is it safe to bet your beloved doesn't use birth control?

Click to expand...

Yes- no insurance for routine costs of chronic diseases, but if the disease causes some type of crisis situation (ie respiratory failure, heart attack, stroke), then that is when actual insurance would kick in. Insurance is for the unexpected, not the routine. This is one of the reasons our health care costs have skyrocketed. People expect everything that is wrong with them to be covered by insurance, and chronic care is highly expensive.

For many years I was dead set against taxs paying for contraception or abortion...until I worked in an alternative school, where young parents <stated Kindly> were getting pregnant like rodents every 9 months and kids were born crack addicts and not wanted and just given up. So here is what I realized..
If you pay for contraception, only those responsible enough to take it are going to use the system, if you pay for contraception, then you dont have to pay to raise the unwanted kid or the abortion. Using a Caucasion woman of obviously some means is not the example that should be used to determine if paying for contraception is actually a benefit. Women of all persuasions on the lower economic scale and women with problems...drug addicts, mental disorders and prostitutes etc...are the ones that should be used to compare is it a benefit and/or cost effective in the long run.

lizzie said:

Yes- no insurance for routine costs of chronic diseases, but if the disease causes some type of crisis situation (ie respiratory failure, heart attack, stroke), then that is when actual insurance would kick in. Insurance is for the unexpected, not the routine. This is one of the reasons our health care costs have skyrocketed. People expect everything that is wrong with them to be covered by insurance, and chronic care is highly expensive.

Click to expand...

routine costs for chronic diseases...do you have any clue as to how much an inhaler costs for someone with asthma with no insurance? 'routine cost' is in the neighborhood of 3-400 dollars....but it should cover if it becomes a crisis? emergency room visit, ambulance ride, hospital stay.....thousands of dollars....which is cheaper to cover?

Harry-
I understand separatism, the 'I am only worried about me and mine right now, I don't care about others'.

Do you buy your insurance as a couple on your own? My wife and I do.

The advantage of company sponsored insurance is two fold. The Company picks up part of the cost to entice workers and as a group the insurance company offers a better rate than the do my wife and I.

The one big flaw with highly tailored insurance policies is an illness popping up and it isn't covered by the policy.

Another flaw in your argument is the term mandate meaning all the cost gets distributed to all the insured. SOME sort of birth control coverage is mandated, not 100% covered by 100% of the insured, you moved the strike zone.

The example I gave in the worker wanting BC coverage is the company and the insured worker split the cost of The Pill. If the state insurance commission requires all insurance companies bonded in that state to offer that plan it is a mandate but what is the cost to you if you don't choose to participate in BC coverage? Many companies have menus for coverage, there isn't a one plan for all.

Just out of curiosity, you have a link for the Hawaii 'study'? Fluctuations occur, would love to see how the study was conducted and what years it covered, overall birth rates can vary from many factors to include economic trends...

But you ducked the question of why all of a sudden this has become an issue when, for many citizens, there is a lot of maintenance drug/equipment treatments covered by insurance for decades.

Oh and the thing on mental illness, get it, you will never see it coming, trust me on this.

randel said:

routine costs for chronic diseases...do you have any clue as to how much an inhaler costs for someone with asthma with no insurance? 'routine cost' is in the neighborhood of 3-400 dollars....but it should cover if it becomes a crisis? emergency room visit, ambulance ride, hospital stay.....thousands of dollars....which is cheaper to cover?

Click to expand...

One of the reasons why medications have become so expensive, is because they are mandated to be paid for by insurance. The consumer has been removed from the loop, so he/she has no concept of cost. If people had to pay for their own drugs, costs would come down due to market competition.

lizzie said:

One of the reasons why medications have become so expensive, is because they are mandated to be paid for by insurance. The consumer has been removed from the loop, so he/she has no concept of cost. If people had to pay for their own drugs, costs would come down due to market competition.

Click to expand...

More like people would go without the drugs they need, and would just head to the emergency room when things got bad...ergo, what we have been dealing with forever with people who can't afford healthcare....

randel said:

More like people would go without the drugs they need, and would just head to the emergency room when things got bad...ergo, what we have been dealing with forever with people who can't afford healthcare....

Click to expand...

You're thinking too short term. Market forces work when people have to be cognitive of their costs. The reason so many people can't afford health care is because congressional mandates in the 70's took the consumer out of the equation, and handed the ball to insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

lizzie said:

You're thinking too short term. Market forces work when people have to be cognitive of their costs. The reason so many people can't afford health care is because congressional mandates in the 70's took the consumer out of the equation, and handed the ball to insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Click to expand...

if that were the case, you would think that insurance companies would be able to negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers, logical, yes? the negotiate with hospitals, why not drug makers?