# Bush says no to Birth Control **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 12, 2001, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720 "2001-04-12T15:05:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2001, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/41 "2001-04-16T21:39:35Z")
cute. Of course, you could have simply said “end of message” (or were you going for “employee of the month”?) Also; re-your story about your daughter etc. No applicable. Referring back to the OP: > [@](#): > > a good health insurance plan is a crucial aspect of recruiting and keeping good employees. However, since we’re talking federal employees, the health care costs are actually spending tax dollars. where should we draw the line between: being an attractive employer (ie getting and keeping good employees) and the utilization of tax dollars on things that certain tax payers may find morally objectionable? The rider involved is only for b/c prescriptions and costs a very small amount (compared to the cost of the health insurance in the first place), and is certainly less expensive than other riders. So, what is the impulse for setting this one aside. mr. **decembers** list certainly doesn’t answer it. When an employer is determining the level of benefits those factors wouldn’t come into play (they’re perhaps the cost controls for the insurance co). Certainly, from a productivity standpoint, it would make sense to enable one’s employees to easily avoid a pregnancy should they desire to do so. So, what is the rationale for not providing it? (in my employer’s case, the director at the time was a Catholic Priest, over the age of 50 - his ‘picks’ for riders on the health coverage matched his own needs. And there weren’t many female employees of child bearing years at the time, either). ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2001, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/42 "2001-04-16T22:46:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*re-your story about your daughter etc. No applicable…it would make sense to enable one’s employees to easily avoid a pregnancy should they desire to do so. \*\* > > - Wring – the point of my story was that employees already can easily avoid a pregnancy, even in the absense of employer-supplied birth control.\* > > **…in my employer’s case, the director at the time was a Catholic Priest, over the age of 50 - his ‘picks’ for riders on the health coverage matched his own needs** > > - Of course. And, the NAACP doesn’t offer their employees a convenient salary deduction plan for Ku Klux Klan dues.\* ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2001, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/43 "2001-04-16T23:34:06Z")
**december:** \*Wring – the point of my story was that employees already can easily avoid a pregnancy, even in the absense of employer-supplied birth control. \* Uh-huh. And many people who suffer from allergies, fungal infections, vision defects, and many other unwanted but far-from-catastrophic afflictions that are routinely covered by health insurance, could “easily avoid” them by paying for treatment themselves. Why should birth control **in particular** be treated differently? Why do you consider that “self-reliance” requires paying for one’s own contraception, but not one’s other prescriptions, out-of-pocket? (And I must say, your implication that making condoms available in college dorms somehow sends the message that students needn’t take responsibility “for their own protection” is about the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. By that token, you could say that providing snack vending machines in dorms sends the message that students aren’t expected to take responsibility for providing their own sustenance. Ridiculous. It makes perfect sense that a college residence hall should make available some consumer items that students will often want at a time when it’s inconvenient or impossible to procure them from the usual commercial sources, whether those items be snacks, sodas, or condoms, and it has nothing to do with “self-reliance”. Or do you also complain about your employer providing a coffee machine on the grounds that they ought to trust you with the responsibility for obtaining your own caffeine fix?) _Of course. And, the NAACP doesn’t offer their employees a convenient salary deduction plan for Ku Klux Klan dues._ :rolleyes: Employers don’t generally offer salary deduction plans to employees for memberships in **any** non-professional organization, you know; if they did, they would indeed damn well have to refrain from discriminating among such organizations on political grounds, or the ACLU would be all over their case. Employers **do** generally offer health insurance benefits to employees, and **wring** is quite right that it’s not fair to employees to limit the available benefits based simply on the personal moral preferences of the employer. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2001, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/44 "2001-04-17T01:51:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* Why should birth control **in particular** be treated differently? \*\* > > I didn’t mean to say it _should_ be treated differently. Rather, it _could_ be treated differently, because of criterion #2 – people who want to use birth control aren’t ill or injured. > > **Why do you consider that “self-reliance” requires paying for one’s own contraception, but not one’s other prescriptions, out-of-pocket?** > > I don’t think self reliance _requires_ paying for one’s own contraception. However, it does imply a recognition that one _could and would_ pay for it if necessary. > > **(And I must say, your implication that making condoms available in college dorms somehow sends the message that students needn’t take responsibility “for their own protection” is about the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.** > > It was meant to be silly. I was stretching to find an excuse for wring’s silly belief that people aren’t generally able to provide birth control on their own. > > \*\*_Of course. And, the NAACP doesn’t offer their employees a convenient salary deduction plan for Ku Klux Klan dues._ > > :rolleyes: Employers don’t generally offer salary deduction plans to employees for memberships in **any** non-professional organization, you know; if they did, they would indeed damn well have to refrain from discriminating among such organizations on political grounds, or the ACLU would be all over their case. Employers **do** generally offer health insurance benefits to employees, and **wring** is quite right that it’s not fair to employees to limit the available benefits based simply on the personal moral preferences of the employer. > > Kimstu – you’re technically correct, but your pedantry is missing my point. A primary goal of the Catholic Church is encouraging people to avoid what they see as sin, including birth control. (Seems a bizarre belief to me, but we do have fredom of religion.) I was trying to say that it’s as wrong-headed for them to support BC as it would be for the NAACP to support racism. > > This is a problematic parallel for me personally, because I despise the KKK and very much favor BC. But, IMHO the American Constitution implies that each group is entitled to their own tastes and beliefs, even if you and I and a majority of our fellow citizens disagree with some of them. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2001, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/45 "2001-04-17T02:51:24Z")
I used to work for an HMO and b/c coverage was on the rise - significantly (I left the HMO at the end of 1999). As were, by the way, riders to cover other things that aren’t always covered - infertility for instance. Employers want to keep health care coverage down, but, as the OP pointed out, they also want to retain and recruit the best employees. In a tight labor market, the $2 a month (far less for a big organization) to cover b/c is a small price. People do review their benefits package when considering an offer, and b/c coverage is a factor. Yeah, you might be able to afford $30 a month - but wouldn’t you rather go to dinner on it (or put it towards your kids college, or your retirement)? And remember, these are government employees (I’ve worked there, too)…not known for market wages. B/C is prescribed (as has been pointed out) for other illnesses - endometrosis for example. Keeps PMS in check. Some women have periods so bad they take a day off every month. Seems like that $2 a month is a good investment to me - even if only one in ten women need to take that first day off. These are illnesses - valid reasons to prescribe. And if they are going to cover Viagra - come on! ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2001, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/46 "2001-04-17T13:08:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **I didn’t mean to say it _should_ be treated differently. Rather, it _could_ be treated differently, because of criterion #2 – people who want to use birth control aren’t ill or injured.** However, the question isn’t how/why the health insurer would treat it differently, the question is why would the employer select this option out? Health insurers cover all ages. The employer is really only interested in aspects connected to the employee. How will this benefit effect my employees? Is this an attractive benefit to offer potential employees? Is this a standard offered in other like industries? etc. > [@](#): > > I don’t think self reliance _requires_ paying for one’s own contraception. However, it does imply a recognition that one _could and would_ pay for it if necessary. Naturally. However, the same is true for **absolutely every other prescription**. So, how is b/c different? Yes, it will primarily effect certain ages more than others, but frankly, those are the ages of the employees in question. > [@](#): > > It was meant to be silly. I was stretching to find an excuse for wring’s silly belief that people aren’t generally able to provide birth control on their own. even sillier perhaps is that I never said that. > [@](#): > > But, IMHO the American Constitution implies that each group is entitled to their own tastes and beliefs, even if you and I and a majority of our fellow citizens disagree with some of them. Interesting that you should mention this, since the OP is questioning the position of the **federal government as an employer** (which essentially means all of us citizens). So, if, in this case it seems that you agree that \*\*most \*\* of the citizens agree that b/c is a personal issue, the cost seems to be quite small, the possability of loosing qualified employees/applicants due to the lack of coverage for this benefit seems to exist, then (ahem) **why do it?** ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2001, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/47 "2001-04-17T14:03:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*I was stretching to find an excuse for wring’s silly belief that people aren’t generally able to provide birth control on their own. even sillier perhaps is that I never said that.\*\* [/QUOTE] On 4/13 wring wrote, “Although in terms of the employer, it makes even less sense, since pregnancy will mean a certain number of lost hours, plus the addition of a dependant on the insurance contract.” IMHO this quote assumes that in the absense of employer-provided birth control, employees (or, at least, some employees) would fail to make use of it, resulting in pregnancies and additional dependants. However, I concede that this is somewhat weaker than the statement I attrributed to wring. Personally I prefer to see BC covered. However, wring’s argument of "why stop _here_ isn’t as strong as it appears. Coverage has to stop somewhere. It’s like inviting people to a party. One can usually make an argument that some univited person had as great or a greater right to be invited than some invited guest. Dangerosa’s argument assumes that the BC can be offered free. However, in the real world the employer has a finite amount of money available. Suppose that in order to offer BC coverage, the employer would have to reduce (or not increase) wages (or some other fringe benefit) by the cost of the BC. Then it’s far from clear which option would be best for recruiting and retaining employees. Re Viagra. Look at criterion #2. BC is for people who have a medical NEED, but not a medical PROBLEM. Viagra is for people who do have a medical problem. AGain, that doesn’t mean that BC shouldn’t be covered, but only that there is a rational basis ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2001, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/48 "2001-04-17T14:27:12Z")
**december**. Of course somewhere the line is drawn. This just seems to be a peculiar place to draw it. The cost for the coverage is minimal, the benefit to the employee is great (for $24 per year, the employee will save $360 for the drugs plus the cost of the exam - when the prescription isn’t covered, neither is the exam). You keep on focusing on your list. To what purpose? Do you have some evidence to suggest that the employer in this case is assessing the costs in this manner? As an employer, that’s not how I would do it. When I’ve evaluated health plans for my co, I look to cost, yes, but also to standards across the industry for what things are covered. (my quote re: cost to the employer was not intending to imply that folks wouldn’t pay for their own b/c, just, as a cost adjustment factor for the employer - $24 per year vs. the possability that a single pregnancy would occur over the course of several years - seems to be a cost effective trade off). ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2001, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/49 "2001-04-17T17:16:23Z")
Or you could increase the “shared” cost of medical insurance by $2 a month. The government is certainly large enough to have multiple medical plans - some that would be covered completely (traditional 80-20 plans) and some (HMOs) which would require a shared costs. Then you can have levels of service for shared costs - one which would include Birth Control. Government agencies would be required to provide an option that includes birth control, but would be permitted to pass the costs on to the employee. (They do this now). And, December, we have made the point several times that B/C pills are often prescribed to control illness (i.e. endometriosis), not just birth. When you allow the same prescription to be covered under one circumstance but not the other, you only encourage doctors to provide false diagnosis to the insurance companies. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2001, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/50 "2001-04-17T19:30:39Z")
> [@](#): > > _wring wrote:_ **"You keep on focusing on your list. To what purpose? Do you have some evidence to suggest that the employer in this case is assessing the costs in this manner?"** > > I don’t know about employers, but I know that insurance experts think in this manner. There are scholars who write about about what sorts of thing should or shouldn’t be insurable. My list was dredged from memory from insurance textbooks and/or articles. Under duress, I could probably dig up a source, but it seems like too much trouble… > > \*Originally posted by Dangerosa \* > \*\*Or you could increase the “shared” cost of medical insurance by $2 a month. The government is certainly large enough to have multiple medical plans - some that would be covered completely (traditional 80-20 plans) and some (HMOs) which would require a shared costs. Then you can have levels of service for shared costs - one which would include Birth Control. Government agencies would be required to provide an option that includes birth control, but would be permitted to pass the costs on to the employee. (They do this now). > > And, December, we have made the point several times that B/C pills are often prescribed to control illness (i.e. endometriosis), not just birth. When you allow the same prescription to be covered under one circumstance but not the other, you only encourage doctors to provide false diagnosis to the insurance companies. \*\* > > Dangerosa – both your points seem reasonable. It’s sad that America needs to design social policy assuming that many doctors will cheat the insurance company or government, but that’s life. This sort of cheating is a problem in workers compensation insurance, too. That system crucially depends on the doctor to evaluate the degree of injury and to determine whether it was industrially caused. > > It’s been fun discussing this with you guys. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2001, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/51 "2001-04-17T19:57:29Z")
**december** I thought that was where you were coming from. You see, the OP in this case, isn’t ‘why would a health insurance carrier put birth control into a different category of risk/assesments etc.’ but why would an **employer** select that particular one out for non coverage- especially when as **Dangerosa** has pointed out, things such as infertility (a very expensive item) are increasingly covered. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2001, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/52 "2001-06-12T18:33:34Z")
Well, for the second time recently, a court decision has been made regarding an old thread. [Wonder](http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20010612_839.html) if some one has told Mr. Bush yet? though no doubt this will be appealed. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2001, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/53 "2001-06-12T20:20:38Z")
December said: > [@](#): > > Dangerosa’s argument assumes that the BC can be offered free. However, in the real world the employer has a finite amount of money available. Suppose that in order to offer BC coverage, the employer would have to reduce (or not increase) wages (or some other fringe benefit) by the cost of the BC. Then it’s far from clear which option would be best for recruiting and retaining employees. Ahh, you’re assuming a one to one relationship and you’re leaving out the tax issue. Here are the options: 1. I will pay you an additional $24 per year (taxed at some rate higher than 15%) and you can buy your own birth control ($440/year) OR 2. I can pay you $24 per year less, but your birth control is covered. Which one would you pick? Considering that I (the employer) ALSO have to pay taxes on the $24, my actual cost is lower if I pay it directly to the HMO! My perceived benefit is higher as I can pitch it to the employee as a $440 benefit while paying a mere $24. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2001, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/54 "2001-06-13T21:29:43Z")
ahh, answers at [last](http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/reuters20010613_246.html) First: Coverage for prescription b/c has been available as a federal employee benefit since… (drum roll please) 1999 for the 9 million federal employees. (suspect that the viagra thing so to speak is why it suddenly became covered). this surprised me. Second: The amount of **extra** money that the federal government had to pay for this coverage: (drum roll please) “no cost impact” as a result. Third: Why is it proposed to be eliminated? drum roll please… we don’t know. the budget proposal presented eliminated that line item, there was no reason given. So. Any ideas? why in the world would any employer specifically track this item down to eliminate it, given that the cost is ‘no impact’, and the benefit to employees is substantial? ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2001, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720/55 "2001-06-14T02:44:17Z")
Well, wring, there is always the undeclared war against American women being fought by conservatives. Nah, that’s just liberal paranoia. How about the undeclared war against American women being fought by a very few, yet powerful, members of conservative factions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-no-to-birth-control/61720.md?page=2)