Birth control, breast pumps, counseling for abuse? Are we going to do pedicures & manicures as well?

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Shot_From_Guns

$5 says the complainers are probably also fat. Know what drives up everyone else’s health care costs the most and is completely avoidable? Obesity and its comorbidities, like diabetes.

So are you going to be PayPal’ing me my money or what?

[UltraVires]

@Cat_Fight

I think the apter analogy is insurance paying for IVF treatments for a 60-year-old woman.

I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with this aspect of insurance. Does it typically cover IVF for a 25 year old woman who cannot get pregnant?

[DiosaBellissima]

@jtgain

How about this. Let’s mandate that health insurance provide every man, with no copay or deductible, a free monthly visit to a strip club. Do you object? You do? How is it hurting you by me getting a benefit that you don’t get?

Sandy? Sandy Rios. . . is that you? Birth control is now equivalent to pedicures, manicures, AND lap dances.

[DianaG]

@jtgain

I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with this aspect of insurance. Does it typically cover IVF for a 25 year old woman who cannot get pregnant?

No, it mostly doesn’t, because it’s natural for post-menopausal women to be infertile, exactly like it’s natural for older men to be flaccid.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@DianaG

No, it mostly doesn’t, because it’s natural for post-menopausal women to be infertile, exactly like it’s natural for older men to be flaccid.

lolwut?

Women being unable to have children after a certain age is normal; not being able to get it up, isn’t.

[UltraVires]

@DiosaBellissima

Sandy? Sandy Rios. . . is that you? Birth control is now equivalent to pedicures, manicures, AND lap dances.

I was responding to the argument that there should be basically no oversight as to what is covered under health insurance because we should simply enjoy our own benefits and not worry about what benefits others receive.

@DianaG

No, it mostly doesn’t, because it’s natural for post-menopausal women to be infertile, exactly like it’s natural for older men to be flaccid.

But does it usually cover IVF for 25 or 30 year old women?

[DianaG]

@jtgain

But does it usually cover IVF for 25 or 30 year old women?

I don’t know. Or care, because the question was about 60 year old women. And no matter how much you may wish to believe that your “natural” state is erect no matter how old you get, you’re mistaken. Ergo the need for Viagra.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@DianaG

I don’t know. Or care, because the question was about 60 year old women. And no matter how much you may wish to believe that your “natural” state is erect no matter how old you get, you’re mistaken. Ergo the need for Viagra.

“Natural” is different than “normal”. I doubt the “natural” state for a guy is to walk around with an erection nor am I too concerned about that. What isn’t normal, however, is for a guy to not be able to get it up. That’s usually the result of a medical condition.

[UltraVires]

@DianaG

I don’t know. Or care, because the question was about 60 year old women. And no matter how much you may wish to believe that your “natural” state is erect no matter how old you get, you’re mistaken. Ergo the need for Viagra.

Well, I think we are getting off track here, but I would distinguish the two because the inability to have a child does not affect your personal health in some way in order to be covered by insurance. That’s why I don’t believe that it is even covered for women of child bearing age.

There are also serious ethical concerns about a 60 year old woman giving birth and accompanying health problems for mother and child that would go along with it.

On the other hand a man being unable to achieve an erection is a product of age, but it affects his personal health in being unable to have sex, which is recognized as beneficial to health. It is also far easier to take medication than for a 60 year old woman to bear a child to term.

I think a more apt analogy is to treat a 90 year old because he is no longer able to run a marathon like he did 65 years ago.

[DianaG]

@jtgain

On the other hand a man being unable to achieve an erection is a product of age, but it affects his personal health in being unable to have sex, which is recognized as beneficial to health. It is also far easier to take medication than for a 60 year old woman to bear a child to term.

The possibility of becoming pregnant also affects a person’s ability to partake of the many benefits of sex, which is why birth control is a good thing that insurance should cover.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@jtgain

How about this. Let’s mandate that health insurance provide every man, with no copay or deductible, a free monthly visit to a strip club. Do you object? You do? How is it hurting you by me getting a benefit that you don’t get?

You are a fucking moron. How about this, I’ll volunteer to pay for your castration if I can be assured that you will never spread your genes on to the next generation ever, ever, ever. God damn.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

I know how to solve this whole issue. Instead of mandating birth control coverage for women, we should mandate condom coverage for men. I’d think that to be a win-win for all involved

[Beadalin]

@jtgain

But does it usually cover IVF for 25 or 30 year old women?

Speaking from personal experience, no.

There are insurance plans that will cover it to some extent. It’s based entirely on the plan design chosen by the employer.

Edited to clarify: I work for a health insurance company. IVF (and birth control, and Viagra, for that matter) is not covered within any of the plans that employees like me can choose from, because the company as my employer does not offer that coverage to its employees. However, it DOES cover any or all of those things for certain employers who offer our insurance to their employees. So someone who has coverage through my company may have richer coverage than I do. It’s all up to the employer in the current model.

[Plumbkrazy]

This whole issue is just one more way the wealthy show contempt for the poor.

The daughters of wealthy people don’t need handouts…piss on everyone else.

[Spice_Weasel]

@jtgain

]I tend to agree with Shodan upthread that preventive care in regards to childbirth doesn’t save them any money.

I provided two citations indicating that for every $1 spent on family planning services, $3-4 are saved that would otherwise be spent on childbirth-related expenses. That’s Title X funding, but I imagine the cost savings would be similar for private insurance companies as well.

Do you have any cites refuting the evidence I have presented?

[Spice_Weasel]

[QUOTE=jtgain]
How about this. Let’s mandate that health insurance provide every man, with no copay or deductible, a free monthly visit to a strip club. Do you object? You do? How is it hurting you by me getting a benefit that you don’t get?
[/QUOTE]

I can’t figure out whether this statement is more hilarious than it is contemptible, or more contemptible than it is hilarious. But either way, good job.

[QUOTE=Plumbkrazy]
This whole issue is just one more way the wealthy show contempt for the poor.
[/QUOTE]

Let’s not overgeneralize. This is how the wealthy show contempt for poor women.

[Snickers]

Holy hell. There’s some weapons-grade stupid in this thread.

Conservatives: demanding smaller government, unless you’re poor, gay, or female.

Love love love the idea of incorporating my uterus so that Congress won’t regulate it.

[curlcoat]

@overlyverbose

I’m late to this thread, but I wanted to say a couple of things:

1. If you’re in the private market for insurance (i.e., no employer plan), you generally have to purchase a maternity rider before anything related to having a baby (pre-natal exams and vitamins, actually having the baby and the required aftercare) will be covered. Even if you’re not in the private market, if you’re working for a particularly small employer (under 100), there are many that cannot afford or choose not to offer a rich enough plan to include maternity insurance.

Wow, really? I thought covering maternity was required by law, since it had been moved into the definition of “illness/injury”. Maybe that was just for employer plans over a certain number of employee, since that is all I ever worked for. Googling around - hmm, looks like it might be a state thing rather than federal. California, god bless their nanny state little hearts, appears to be trying to pass a law that will require all insurance companies to offer maternity on all plans by the beginning of next year, because “More and more women are purchasing policies that do not include maternity coverage. When less people buy into these plans, coverage costs increase.” Link.. Well, it won’t really affect us since our plan already covers maternity, but it really is the only self inflicted illness/injury that is covered by insurance…

So technically, you might say that if you’re a man with a private insurance plan or an employer for a small company with no maternity insurance, you do get a discount because you’re not required to purchase a maternity rider if you’re not having a baby, nor are you required to pay for others who are having children.

Until 2014, then we all pay.

Also, with respect to paid leave, curlcoat, I think you might be confusing FMLA and short term disability. For many women whose companies offer employees a short-term disability policy “free” (like mine does), they will receive up to 70% of their wages for up to 6 weeks. Yes, pregnancy is considered a short-term disability under the terms of many employers’ policies if they’re large enough and can afford it. The second six weeks of time off, if they choose to take it, is covered under FMLA without pay. All FMLA does is protect your job. It’s highly likely that the women in your job were taking a combination of STD and FMLA.

Could be. OTOH, the “disability” of maternity was automatically approved, whereas any other disability required jumping thru hoops and waiting for weeks. So either maternity leave was a different thing, or it was treated completely differently from all other disabilities.

[LeeshaJoy]

@ZPG_Zealot

If the reason for breast feeding is because it makes the mother feel pleasure, I guess you are in deed a pedophile.

Are you under the impression that sexual pleasure is the only kind of pleasure that exists? :dubious:

[ladyfoxfyre]

ZPG is under a lot of impressions about sex. Most of them are wrong. The rest are just entertaining.