It isn’t, but getting a hard on isn’t a medical necessity, either.
Just sayin’.
~Tasha
And here you just contradicted yourself. Some insurers cover both, some cover neither, some cover one or the other. Do you have a list of major Insurance co that cover Viagra but not BC?
Reading the article, it says that women pay more because they go to the doctor more. Perhaps it’s not equitable, but what is the solution? Give women free visits, but not men? Give women a lower deductable than men? That doesn’t seem fair either.
In addition to DrDeth’s point that you haven’t provided any evidence that the former is always covered and that the latter is never covered, I don’t understand how Viagra and Rogaine are the gender “opposite” of birth-control, anyway. What does one have to do with the other?
In the cited case, birth-control isn’t covered for women OR men. Is your insurer telling you that men get free condoms or free vasectomies, while women have to pay for the pill? Unless that’s the case, how is this discriminatory? I don’t know about other men, but I have to pay for my condoms.
IIRC, in another thread about the difference in life span between men and women, it was pointed out that men went to the doctor less frequently even when they had reason to go. Why should women be punished because we happen to go to the doctor when something is wrong instead of ignoring it? Of course, there are gynecological visits and all that, but women don’t have prostates, and it seems a lot of older men have prostate problems.
As for the other point, I’m looking for a cite, but most insurance companies will pay for permenant sterilization, e.g. vasectomies, but not birth control. Refusing to pay for one of the cheapest, safest, and most effective forms of contraception is ridiculous- for most women, pregnancy/childbirth can be a great risk to one’s health. (And FWIW, you don’t have to pay for your condoms. Go to your local health department and they’ll gladly give you a huge bag full)
And many insurance companies cover Viagra, but not the Pill. If that’s not the height of stupidity, I don’t know what it.
Again, though, how do you figure you’re being punished by having to pay the co-pay when you go to the doctor? What is your solution? Do you want women to get free visits that men don’t get? Why should men be punished because we don’t go running to the doctor every time we get a splinter?
Let me know when you find that cite, but even if you do, how is that discriminatory? In the case you describe, they would provide sterilization for men OR women, and would provide birth control for neither men nor women. You may disagree with the policy, but that doesn’t make it discriminatory.
Thanks, but of course my point was not to complain about the cost of condoms, but rather to point out that birth control is denied to both genders, and is not a case of discrimination.
Again, Viagra is not the “opposite” of the pill. It’s a completely different issue. And many insurance companies do NOT cover Viagra. In fact, I’m sure there are insurance companies that cover the pill but don’t cover Viagra. I don’t hear men bitching about that, though.
Here we go.
From here.
From here.
FWIW, this site has a petition you can sign supporting a bill requiring health insurers to pay for birth control.
Thanks for the cites, but you haven’t refuted anything I wrote.
I wouldn’t mind seeing birth control covered by all providers. (BTW my insurer DOES cover birth control for women but DOESN’T cover condoms for men, so go figure). It’s not a case of discrimination, though, and is a completely different issue than the frequency of visits, which we were discussing earlier.
Yak, yak, yak.
Get back in the kitchen.
Because it takes 2 to tango. The discriminatory part is that women are paying out of pocket to prevent a pregnancy that would only be 50% her fault, and being penalized for choosing a reversible form of birth control because she may want children later in life. I don’t know the statistics, but with my friends at least it seems that the pill is the preferred form of contraception, with condoms a distant second. So, according to the sites linked above, women pay 68% more out of pocket for contraceptive and reproductive services, for pregnancies (or the prevention thereof) that they are only 50% responsible for. How is that not discriminatory?
While a poster upthread said he and his SO split the cost of the pill, many women aren’t in a committed relationship or have an SO that nice. I’ve always paid for my birth control myself, it never occurred to me that my boyfriend might be willing to split the cost (and I doubt he would be, but we’re no longer together anyway).
The point about Viagra is that it is not medically necessary, no matter how you look at it. Birth control pills do have medical benefits. As someone pointed out, not all uses of the pill are purely contraceptive- hell, I take it instead of getting something like Depo because it clears up my skin. So for an insurance company to cover Viagra but not the pill sends the message that men’s sexual gratification is more important than women’s reproductive health. That seems a bit discriminatory, as well.
Pregnancy is risky, as is childbirth and abortions. Preventing unwanted pregnancies would save health insurance companies a lot of money. Not doing it makes them the world’s biggest asshats.
Oh, and lowbrass, regarding the frequency of visits- preventative care costs less in the long run than treatment once the problem’s gotten out of hand. So if men are less likely to go to the doctor for preventative care, they’re costing the insurance companies more, and charging women more (per month, not per visit, see the post upthread regarding $35 monthly fee for men vs. $90-something for women) that, too, is discriminatory.
[ul][li]Another study that included a range of health plans found that 85 percent covered medication and services related to impotency, whereas only 59 percent covered oral contraception.[/li]
[li]Mammograms were covered by three fourths of typical employment-based policies but were covered by all health maintenance organizations (HMOs); however, only 20 percent of employees were enrolled in HMOs. A quarter of typical employment-related insurance plans did not cover Papanicolaou tests; 10 percent did not cover abortion. Many insurers ask women if they have been victims of domestic violence. A spokesperson for an insurance firm justified either excluding such women or charging them higher premiums by equating them with "diabetic[s] not taking their medication.’’[/li]
[li]Even though the women covered by Medicare are older than the men, Medicare distributes 12 percent more of its payments per beneficiary per year to men.[/li]
[li]Inequitable health insurance coverage is inevitable as long as our nation relies on many diverse subsystems of insurance that are not collectively accountable under a national policy to ensure universal, fair access to health care. Women’s increasing disadvantages with respect to access to private insurance reflect their lower pay and lower work status and the fact that employers are retreating from providing insurance for workers low on the pay scale. But this is not the whole story. It may be that men’s greater seniority as insurers, as employers, in unions, or in public office also partly explains why Medicare and private insurance fit men’s needs better than women’s. Furthermore, although women who are married to men who work have better insurance than other women both before and after retirement, women’s deteriorating access to private insurance may also illuminate the increasing inadequacy of insurance systems designed for an economically more homogeneous society in which men work for benefits and women stay at home.[/li][/ul]
This is all from the New England Journal of Medicine. I’d link it but you can’t access it unless you have a paid subscription or are accessing it through a college database. I can, of course, do that if anyone wants.
Anyhow, it would appear that women are discriminated against in terms of health care coverage. Like I didn’t already know that.
That’s just not how policies are priced. Just isn’t. If there is a more profitable and less expensive way to provide health insurance, one that half of all consumers have a strong demand for, I can assure you that there would be insurers who would provide it. The market would get flooded with this product as consumers flocked to it.
Do the posters in this thread really think there’s an evil male insurance cabal plotting how to keep women down in some lair somewhere?
You know, if it were really financially sound for insurance companies to pay for women’s contraception, they would do it. There are some very sharp mathematical minds in the insurance industry, if you can pull together some convincing numbers showing them how to increase their profits, you’ll be their hero. If nobody’s covering oral contraception, it’s safe to assume that the extra cost of convering it is such that it would outweigh any competitive edge an insurer could gain.
I don’t want to validate this contraception vs Viagra comparison, but let’s do a ballpark of the numbers :
As many as half of men over 40 have at least mild or occasional impotence, but Pfizer estimates that only about 15 percent of those men get prescriptions for Viagra, Cialis or Levitra in a given year. (reg. probably required) So for the US that gives us about 4 million men using Viagra et al. Maybe a couple of times a week ? For a limited duration ? Oral contraception concerns what, 50 million daily users ? Over some 30 years ? Other variables could include men who won’t submit claims for Viagra because they’re embarrased. How much of a competitive edge an insurer would get by offering one or the other product etc.
Ultimately, the insurers have the real data, and they’re calling the shots.
So, from a business POV, a purely pragmatic choice. Whether that’s ideologically discriminatory is up for grabs. I’d say there are certain ‘extra costs’ inherent in being a woman, and certain ‘extra costs’ inherent in being a man. Just how far do we want to go in ironing everything out ?
Where I live, the government heavily subsidizes most commonly used medications, so the issue doesn’t really arise. OTOH this leads to other oddities such as limitless funds for prolonging the suffering of the terminally ill, vs. zero funding for dental care…
On the other hand, do you really want ideology snaking its way further into medical and sexual decisions ? Do you really want the Patriarchy plying young women with free contraceptives and old men with free Viagra ? Think where that could lead !
On preview :
This doesn’t necessarily demonstrate discrimination against women either - it’s more likely a reflection of men’s statistically higher vulnerability to cancer et al. OTOH, I gather that medicare is not profit-driven, so you may have a point there…
Women as a group are richer than men.
Women as a group live longer then men.
(In the US) more women than men get an advanced degree.
Is the first true? Not doubting, just a bit surprised.
So they’re just supposed to continue to give you a paycheck for doing nothing while you take off as much time as you want, but only if it’s because you’re a new mother?
What if I feel I need to take 3 months off while I get rid of the latest recurrance of my chronic hives? Should my boss keep paying me even though I’m not doing any work?
Minus my copay, my insurance covers birth control pills, the patch, and the ring. I guess they figure it’s cheaper than pregnancy and birth.
There are times when I have sucked it up and paid the entire 34$ for a month’s supply because of a trip. I will likely have to do so when I go to Mexico in the fall. And that 34$ is less than the copay of the antihistamine my doctor put me on for the chronic hives. That co-pay alone is 50$ a month.
Condoms are cheap??
And diaphragms have to be prescribed and fitted by a doctor, and also require the use of spermicide with them. I wouldn’t call any of the methods that you listed ‘cheap’, actually. Condoms might be available free to college students, but they sure as hell aren’t free for me.
My insurer covers birth control pills because they cover prescription drugs. Anything OTC is not covered, whether for men or women. So they don’t pay for the sponge, or condoms. It’s not about male/female it’s prescription/OTC.
Because the failure rate of condoms is so much higher than the failure rate of birth control pills, and it does a lot of things condoms can’t, like control how long/heavy a period is, get rid of cramps, help to clear up acne, diminish the effects of PMS etc.
[SIZE=2]Psst, catsix, that wasn’t me. No big, just FYI.[/SIZE]
You’re right. It was nyctea scandiaca who said that.
I got your name by mistake on a scrolling error. Sorry about that.
RedRosesForMe, thanks for all the good information. I signed that online petition.
Not arguing the fairness or lack thereof in the insurance industry’s policies, but I think one thing has been overlooked here. Many have mentioned the insurance companies are profit driven. I agree, but that does not mean profit is limited to the BC vs. Pregnacy equation. What about favorable legislation and “Sweetheart Contracts” to those who follow the agenda of those in power (Dem or Rep)? The no negotiation power clause of the recent drug bill for seniors comes to mind. I know that is the pharmacutical companies involved, but does anyone really think the entire medical industry is not intertwined? The stakeholders in health insurance, health care and pharmaceuticals are overlapping, albiet I have no figures to say how much. But it seems to me it would be financially prudent to sacrifice profits in my health insurance investments, if in doing so my pharmaceutical investments soar due to a lucrative deal with the Govt for following the agenda. I empasis “Would be”. My entire portfolio consists of 0 shares of anything, and we are a paycheck to paycheck family, with a savings reserve of about three weeks pay.
I know it sounds very conspiracy minded, but I think viewing BC costs and child birth costs and coming to a conclusion of what makes business sense is a very simplistic view of a very complicated industry.
And yes, BC not being covered sucks. The insurance company deciding how many Relpax pills my wife can get for her migranes, not the doctor sucks. The system is FUBAR and needs major reform.