• 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

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...

Given the cost of contraception, the premium increases will be minuscule. And given the attitudes of most people in this thread about reproductive choices (and Americans in general), I think most of us would gladly shoulder that small, additional cost to ensure that everyone can have access to birth control.

The government should have done this a long time ago.
 
Ockham said:
Yes yes we know... and how many more welfare recipients, and how many more food stamp recipients, and poor, and diseased, and homeless, and don't forget crime and then incarceration. Best to just cut the middleman out Deuce and just pay once for the operation and render people infertile. A modified broken window fallacy.
Click to expand...

Standard conservatism: take anything said to absurd degrees and attack that instead of making a real argument.

Ockham, you're conservative, right? You support smaller government? You must also then support dissolution of the United States entirely, that's even less government!

Ockham hates America and wants it to go away.
 
Temporal said:
Given the cost of contraception, the premium increases will be minuscule. And given the attitudes of most people in this thread about reproductive choices (and Americans in general), I think most of us would gladly shoulder that small, additional cost to ensure that everyone can have access to birth control.

The government should have done this a long time ago.
Click to expand...

No I'm not particularly happy shouldering the burden for other adults who could pay for it in full, themselves.

If your in a financial situation where you can't afford BC, go to the local health department.
They adjust cost based on income and need.

I also don't support the government discriminating against my gender, in favor of another gender.
 
Deuce said:
Standard conservatism: take anything said to absurd degrees and attack that instead of making a real argument.

Ockham, you're conservative, right? You support smaller government? You must also then support dissolution of the United States entirely, that's even less government!
Click to expand...
Wait.. you just proved yourself to be a conservative Deuce since you just proved your earlier sentence of "take anything said to absurd degrees and attack that instead of making a real argument". Way to own yourself there dude. :lamo
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Assuming it did what it was supposed to do. So assuming 400 women get birth control that couldn't get it before and it prevented 1 pregnancy it pays for itself. It is more likely that many more than just 1 pregnancy will be avoided therefore less money will be needed to cover the cost of prenatal care and giving birth and other costs associated with having children. Therefore the premiums could actually go down if it worked properly.

I agree the cost of healthcare is too much which is why insurance costs so much. The reason this is, is because people think okay, it costs me $15 (co-pay) to go to the doctor, I'll go everytime I think something MIGHT be wrong. Also, and procedure costs around $100, might as well get that done. Everyone is having things done that don't need to be done. Very little of that care keeps costs down. Preventative care does though. Scans for cancer, birth control, etc are things that could actually help keep costs DOWN by preventing things that cost much more money. If people were less sick, insurance wouldn't cost as much because it wouldn't have to pay out so much.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No I'm not particularly happy shouldering the burden for other adults who could pay for it in full, themselves.

If your in a financial situation where you can't afford BC, go to the local health department.
They adjust cost based on income and need.

I also don't support the government discriminating against my gender, in favor of another gender.
Click to expand...

The way things are going there wont be any money at the local health department to pay for it. So you are not for insurance companies allowing women "free" birth control which would be paid for by its customers but you are in favor of the government giving "free" birth control paid for by tax payer dollars?

Would you agree to this: Women can receive free birth control as long as they can prove need. The way to prove need would be to go online or somewhere, give them your name and they can check your taxes to see if you qualify and then you can have birth control?
 
lovetosing4678 said:
Assuming it did what it was supposed to do. So assuming 400 women get birth control that couldn't get it before and it prevented 1 pregnancy it pays for itself. It is more likely that many more than just 1 pregnancy will be avoided therefore less money will be needed to cover the cost of prenatal care and giving birth and other costs associated with having children. Therefore the premiums could actually go down if it worked properly.
Click to expand...

BC is an ongoing cost, for a lot of people and those potential savings are assumed, not necessarily real.

lovetosing4678 said:
I agree the cost of healthcare is too much which is why insurance costs so much. The reason this is, is because people think okay, it costs me $15 (co-pay) to go to the doctor, I'll go everytime I think something MIGHT be wrong. Also, and procedure costs around $100, might as well get that done. Everyone is having things done that don't need to be done. Very little of that care keeps costs down. Preventative care does though. Scans for cancer, birth control, etc are things that could actually help keep costs DOWN by preventing things that cost much more money. If people were less sick, insurance wouldn't cost as much because it wouldn't have to pay out so much.
Click to expand...

Preventative medicine doesn't save money, already been documented.
Preventative lifestyle practices save money.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No I'm not particularly happy shouldering the burden for other adults who could pay for it in full, themselves.

If your in a financial situation where you can't afford BC, go to the local health department.
They adjust cost based on income and need.
Click to expand...

Well, won't that happen anyway? Insurance companies just pay claims on receipts. If they go to the local health department then they could get a discount while still applying it to insurance.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I also don't support the government discriminating against my gender, in favor of another gender.
Click to expand...

Sour grapes. Your gender isn't being discriminated against. This isn't discrimination via omission. Worldwide research shows that empowering women is how you manage the reproductive health of populations, and that is UN policy as well. Offering the pill for free is far, far more effective than offering condoms for free.

In principle you may have a case, but on a policy level it's irrelevant. Plus, when taken properly, the pill is more effective than condoms. Condoms can leak, break, or not be put on properly. It is harder to ensure that male populations are doing it right vs. women just taking a single pill every day that is clearly labelled for the day of the month.
 
lovetosing4678 said:
The way things are going there wont be any money at the local health department to pay for it. So you are not for insurance companies allowing women "free" birth control which would be paid for by its customers but you are in favor of the government giving "free" birth control paid for by tax payer dollars?

Would you agree to this: Women can receive free birth control as long as they can prove need. The way to prove need would be to go online or somewhere, give them your name and they can check your taxes to see if you qualify and then you can have birth control?
Click to expand...

I typically don't agree with government paying for stuff that is already affordable to the vast majority of people.
It doesn't serve any real purpose.

This doesn't seem like it will motivate, already unmotivated people to use BC.
 
Temporal said:
Well, won't that happen anyway? Insurance companies just pay claims on receipts. If they go to the local health department then they could get a discount while still applying it to insurance.
Click to expand...

The health department is typically for people without insurance.
Although I know a lot of people who have access to inexpensive but comprehensive insurance who use it because it's free to them.

That's another argument though, about how "the commons" are abused.

Temporal said:
Sour grapes. Your gender isn't being discriminated against. This isn't discrimination via omission. Worldwide research shows that empowering women is how you manage the reproductive health of populations, and that is UN policy as well. Offering the pill for free is far, far more effective than offering condoms for free.

In principle you may have a case, but on a policy level it's irrelevant. Plus, when taken properly, the pill is more effective than condoms. Condoms can leak, break, or not be put on properly. It is harder to ensure that male populations are doing it right vs. women just taking a single pill every day that is clearly labelled for the day of the month.
Click to expand...

Of course it's implicit gender discrimination.
Gender price discrimination was outlawed, yet policy benefit discrimination is supported by the government.
That basically means that men have to pay the same price, for less medical benefits.

I'm not against empowering women.
Is it more empowering to have to use a paternal government or is it more empowering for women to accomplish things without it?
 
obvious Child said:
Say what? Aren't preventative medicines part of preventive lifestyles?
Click to expand...

No.
Preventative lifestyle is about behavior changes that displace the need for the use of medical services, including medications.
Although I will concede some medications are more beneficial, like immunizations.

Edit:
I suppose including BC would be good too, but if we're talking about disease prevention, condoms tend to work better and it's not a medication.
Although again, we're taking the price mechanism out of the conscience of consumer choice, which will distort the medical market even more.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
No.
Preventative lifestyle is about behavior changes that displace the need for the use of medical services, including medications.
Although I will concede some medications are more beneficial, like immunizations.
Click to expand...

People don't change. Policies need to reflect that. Simply put, it is easier and cheaper to pay for birth control and similar services than it is to pay for unwanted children.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
BC is an ongoing cost, for a lot of people and those potential savings are assumed, not necessarily real.



Preventative medicine doesn't save money, already been documented.
Preventative lifestyle practices save money.
Click to expand...

Please show me where it has been documented that preventative medicine doesn't save money. I would be curious to see this. I haven't heard of such research but I would like to.

Also, alright so lets do some math. Lets take a sample of 800 women for a year. The first 400 women do not take the birth control pill. According to statistics 85% of women will get pregnant with no method of birth control. (I have added the website for a list of statistics for failure rates of methods of birth control) Alright, so 85% of 400 is 340 women get pregnant. I will use a figure I used early that says the cost of just delivery of a baby is $6000-$8000 dollars. Lets be conservative and use the $6000. That totals $2,040,000. Second set of 400 use the birth control pill. 5% of women getting pregnant taking the pill. So 5% of 400 is 20 times $6,000 is 120,000. So the ongoing cost needs to be added in. Lets say the birth control pills cost $50(high end) a month. That totals $240,000 (400 women x $50 x 12 months). Add $240,000 and $120,000 equals $360,000. That is a savings of $1,680,000. I say it is worth it...


Overview: Birth Control : American Pregnancy Association
 
Preventative care saves money in other realms, as well. If one gets certain types of preventative care, cancer is easier to catch in its earliest stages. This concept applies to all areas of health care. It's basic common sense.
 
lovetosing4678 said:
Please show me where it has been documented that preventative medicine doesn't save money. I would be curious to see this. I haven't heard of such research but I would like to.

Also, alright so lets do some math. Lets take a sample of 800 women for a year. The first 400 women do not take the birth control pill. According to statistics 85% of women will get pregnant with no method of birth control. (I have added the website for a list of statistics for failure rates of methods of birth control) Alright, so 85% of 400 is 340 women get pregnant. I will use a figure I used early that says the cost of just delivery of a baby is $6000-$8000 dollars. Lets be conservative and use the $6000. That totals $2,040,000. Second set of 400 use the birth control pill. 5% of women getting pregnant taking the pill. So 5% of 400 is 20 times $6,000 is 120,000. So the ongoing cost needs to be added in. Lets say the birth control pills cost $50(high end) a month. That totals $240,000 (400 women x $50 x 12 months). Add $240,000 and $120,000 equals $360,000. That is a savings of $1,680,000. I say it is worth it...


Overview: Birth Control : American Pregnancy Association
Click to expand...

NEJM said:
Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.3 For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures. Preventive measures that do not save money may or may not represent cost-effective care (i.e., good value for the resources expended). Whether any preventive measure saves money or is a reasonable investment despite adding to costs depends entirely on the particular intervention and the specific population in question. For example, drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.4
Click to expand...

MMS: Error
 
evanescence said:
Preventative care saves money in other realms, as well. If one gets certain types of preventative care, cancer is easier to catch in its earliest stages. This concept applies to all areas of health care. It's basic common sense.
Click to expand...

That is not true.
The cost of screening everyone, would greatly exceed the cost of treating those who developed higher levels of cancer, if not caught earlier.
 
MrVicchio said:
Why not make all preventive medicine free?
Click to expand...
Because not all preventative medicine has the same roi? Just guessing that there may be some differences. I could be wrong--it may be all the same. idk

I think that some insurers already give discounts etc for not smoking, going to the gym and other sorts of wellness activities based on the proposition that by doing so the insurers are saving money in the long run.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Because not all preventative medicine has the same roi? Just guessing that there may be some differences. I could be wrong--it may be all the same. idk

I think that some insurers already give discounts etc for not smoking, going to the gym and other sorts of wellness activities based on the proposition that by doing so the insurers are saving money in the long run.
Click to expand...

That is because it is actually preventative, as opposed to just giving out all sorts of medicine freebies.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
MMS: Error
Click to expand...

I noticed you didnt respond to the math in my post. Only to my request for information. Thank you for the link, I will look more into it later. As for what you posted in your quote, it does not say that preventative care is not cost effective. It says there are cases for it and there are cases you shouldn't do it. It doesn't make sense to have everyone screened for Parkinson's, obviously, but there are many widespread diseases where it would save tons of money to screen for it to catch it early and to treat it. Just reading your quote proves my point more than it proves yours.
 
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?
Click to expand...
If people don't take advantage of it, then there will be relatively little impact good or ill from the proposal should it ever take effect.
 
lovetosing4678 said:
I noticed you didnt respond to the math in my post. Only to my request for information. Thank you for the link, I will look more into it later. As for what you posted in your quote, it does not say that preventative care is not cost effective. It says there are cases for it and there are cases you shouldn't do it. It doesn't make sense to have everyone screened for Parkinson's, obviously, but there are many widespread diseases where it would save tons of money to screen for it to catch it early and to treat it. Just reading your quote proves my point more than it proves yours.
Click to expand...

But your math is an assumption based on perfectly rational humans, which we aren't.
Of those 400, how many will actually complete their regular birth control regimen?

How many will make mistakes like taking antibiotics, which nulls the effects of some BC, then getting pregnant.
The world doesn't fall into a perfectly mathematical formula like you laid out.
 
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...
What is the reason that the panel said they were recommending that insurance cover contraceptives? I know you think the panel said what they did because they're politically motivated to say such things, but, what's the ostensible reason why they're recommending this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom