I'm tired of women being discriminated against for healthcare

The BBQ Pit
81

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
So where are we then? I take it you disagree with the OP, who was angry because insurance doesn’t pay for birth control?
[/QUOTE]

To a certain extent I do agree with the OP. It’s my personal belief that no one should need to, or even consider going without medical necessities for financial reasons. If you need BC pills to control hormonal problems, or some other medical reason, then you should not need to pay out of pocket any more than you would for any other drug required for your well-being.

However, if it’s simply an issue of “I don’t want to bother with condoms”, then I’m a bit more torn. It would be great if that were covered as well, but the health insurance system in the US is so broken (IMO, YMMV, etc) that it’s completely irrational to expect that. Once everyone is covered for the drugs which a doctor says they need, then we can tackle playtoys.

82

[QUOTE=tashabot]
I call bullshit. Men and women alike are perfectly able to get along in life, medically and mentally healthy otherwise, without being able to have sex.

[/quote]

I don’t know that “able to get along in life” ought to be the defining criteria. I could “get along in life” without sight, without hearing, without a limb, with loss of intelligence, with some loss of motor skills, etc. I’d still be alive, but certainly my quality of life would be diminished. Are you saying that only that which keeps you from death is a medical necessity?

That’s a seperate argument. We weren’t arguing which is more frustrating; we were arguing which was a medical necessity. An erection is part of how the human body works. Preventing fertilization is not. And even if it were, why should The Pill be covered but not condoms, if both are being used for contraception?

Well I don’t think sex is a frill; I think it’s a need. But that’s another argument as well.

83

[QUOTE=NinjaChick]
To a certain extent I do agree with the OP. It’s my personal belief that no one should need to, or even consider going without medical necessities for financial reasons. If you need BC pills to control hormonal problems, or some other medical reason, then you should not need to pay out of pocket any more than you would for any other drug required for your well-being.

[/quote]

The OP didn’t say that, though. The OP specifically said “birth control”.

Well I’m actually in favor of contraception being covered, but if it’s not, you do agree that doesn’t constitute discrimination against women, right?

84

[QUOTE=tashabot]
I call bullshit. Men and women alike are perfectly able to get along in life, medically and mentally healthy otherwise, without being able to have sex. It’s frustrating, perhaps, but no more frustrating than having to deny someone I love (and myself) sex because I can’t afford to have kids and can’t afford effective birth control.

Viagra is a frill, just like birth control is.

~Tasha
[/QUOTE]

By the way, I have to ask you - do you think reconstructive surgery after a mastectomy is a “frill”, and shouldn’t be covered by insurance? I don’t consider that a frill. I think that if a woman believes she will have a healthier and more rewarding sex life by having her breasts returned to their normal appearance, then that should be covered. Many plans do not consider that as cosmetic surgery, but rather as a necessary procedure. I tend to agree.

85

[QUOTE=tashabot]
I call bullshit. Men and women alike are perfectly able to get along in life, medically and mentally healthy otherwise, without being able to have sex. It’s frustrating, perhaps, but no more frustrating than having to deny someone I love (and myself) sex because I can’t afford to have kids and can’t afford effective birth control.

Viagra is a frill, just like birth control is.

~Tasha
[/QUOTE]
It’s simple, then. Purchase health insurance that provides the coverage you want. Same for all of us.

86

[QUOTE=NinjaChick]
To a certain extent I do agree with the OP. It’s my personal belief that no one should need to, or even consider going without medical necessities for financial reasons. If you need BC pills to control hormonal problems, or some other medical reason, then you should not need to pay out of pocket any more than you would for any other drug required for your well-being.
[/QUOTE]
Are you still discussing insurance, or have you wandered into the welfare arena? I agree that the state has certain obligations to provide for the least of its brethren, those in dire need of medical assistance but with no means to pay for it. That does not mean every insurer needs to provide for every need anyone might want. They offer certain coverage, you decide if that does the trick for you. No? Okay, you needn’t purchase it.

Sorry if I keep hammering on this same theme, but that’s the essence for me. I wish my health insurer would give me a billion dollars for my mental health. I don’t see why it would, however. And since they don’t offer that benefit, I’m limited to the alternatives that the market offers. The world is not obliged to meet my needs. Sorry that seems to offend some.

87

Interesting thread (especially for someone who has had no health insurance for the past couple of years and has no idea about what it does and doesn’t cover)…

[QUOTE=lowbrass]

Besides which, my insurance does cover codeine. So I have no idea what your point is.
[/QUOTE]

Psst, lowbrass, I think DrDeth was comparing your argument:

“My insurance won’t cover Rogaine (which is OTC), but will cover the Pill (by prescription)”

with this statement:

“My insurance won’t cover aspirin (which is OTC), but will cover codeine (prescription needed)”

or more general, arguing that:

“My insurance won’t cover X(OTC), but will cover Y (prescription)”

is completely absurd. See the point?

BTW, health insurance is not cheap, and not all of them differ greatly from what they do and do not cover, making it difficult to say “Well just change insurance!”… what if that is the insurance that the work offers??? You may decide NOT to take a job if you don’t like the health insurance, but once you have it, what if they change the type of insurance (and its benefits)? I call it absurd to think that humans (and their lives) are so easy that they can just up and change everything on a whim.

88

[QUOTE=catsix]
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?
[/quote]

Three months would be nice. New fathers should get it too. So should people who just adopted. I’m pretty egalitarian about it. Some employers do this as a matter of course, some don’t. I wish I worked for one who did. No need to lose your shit over it.

Huh, the reason for your perpetual irritation is finally revealed! I can cross that off my Unsolved Mysteries list.

89

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Condoms. Aka “rubbers”. Never heard of them?

“IME”? :confused:
[/QUOTE]

I’m saying that my partners don’t have to pay for any sort of birth control, including condoms, because I am already on the pill. Some people like to “double up” (like my friend who’s gotten pregnant 3 times on 3 different types of contraception) but I am not so amazingly fertile, nor so afraid of potential pregnancy- I just don’t think it would be prudent for me to get pregnant while still in school.

90

BTW, lowbrass, I reread what you wrote, and got the right meaning finally (I think). Sorry for that, the fault is mine.

91

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
The pill isn’t medically necessary when prescribed for birth control, any more than condoms are medically necessary. But Viagra is medically necessary. Sexual function is part of the human body. To say a man doesn’t need to be able to get an erection is absurd - a normal male is able to get an erection. So I could use your “medically necessary” argument to counter the complaint that some insurers cover Viagra and not The Pill. Yet women are bitterly arguing against such a policy. And that’s my point - all these ‘apples and oranges’ arguments do not hold water.
[/QUOTE]

So, do you think that companies that cover Viagra should also cover infertility treatments?

92

[QUOTE=RedRosesForMe]

…a 15% increase in the number of oral contraceptive users in a health insurance plan generates enough savings in pregnancy costs to provide oral contraceptives for all contraceptive users in the plan.

…So covering contraception is cheaper because it prevents unintended pregnancies, yet many insurers still do not cover it. If it saves them money, why aren’t they? I find it hard to believe that this does not constitute gender discrimination. And, as shown above, I’m not the only one who thinks so.
[/QUOTE]
So, are you arguing that if more insurers were to cover oral contraceptives there would be a substantial drop in the US birthrate ?

Are a large number of births directly contingent on the high cost of contraceptives ?

If not, I still don’t see the economic sense for insurers. The only way it could be profitable for a private insurer to offer this coverage is to gain a competitive edge - they’ll take a loss on the contraceptives, but gain women customers.

93

[QUOTE=Themenin]
So, are you arguing that if more insurers were to cover oral contraceptives there would be a substantial drop in the US birthrate ?

Are a large number of births directly contingent on the high cost of contraceptives ?

If not, I still don’t see the economic sense for insurers. The only way it could be profitable for a private insurer to offer this coverage is to gain a competitive edge - they’ll take a loss on the contraceptives, but gain women customers.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I do think that if insurance companies covered contraception there would be a decline in the birth rate, and abortion rate, and less money paid for prenatal care, etc.

The US has the highest unintended pregnancy rate of any industrialized nation- more than 50%. Those unintended pregnancies cost health insurance companies a lot of money.

But here’s the kicker- insurance companies know that women with the means to pay out-of-pocket for contraception will do it, so many still don’t cover it. The better off women get their birth control anyway, and the lower-income women just have to suck it up and hope they don’t get pregnant, using a less effective means of birth control like condoms.

The economic incentive is there- one of my earlier links referenced a study that found that covering contraception would save enough in costs related to unplanned pregnancies that insurance companies would save $40 per person annually. Yet a lot still don’t. And this is after several courts have ruled that insurance plans which provide prescription coverage but do not cover contraception are, in fact, discriminating against women.

94

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
I don’t know that “able to get along in life” ought to be the defining criteria. I could “get along in life” without sight, without hearing, without a limb, with loss of intelligence, with some loss of motor skills, etc. I’d still be alive, but certainly my quality of life would be diminished. Are you saying that only that which keeps you from death is a medical necessity?
[/quote]

So, companies should pay for Viagra because without it, a man’s quality of life is diminished? But they shouldn’t pay for the pill, because a woman’s quality of life is not effected by the fear of pregnancy? Of pregnancy? Of ending an unwanted pregnancy? What if a woman’s ability to enjoy sex (a quality of life aspect, wouldn’t you agree?) is diminished by not being able to relax? What if her ability to enjoy sex is diminished by using condoms? Men can have all kinds of sex with their partner that doesn’t involve an erection. That’s not good enough? That’s a diminishment of their quality of life? If that’s your criteria, then women should be given the same quality of life by having access to affordable birth control pills.

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
That’s a seperate argument. We weren’t arguing which is more frustrating; we were arguing which was a medical necessity. An erection is part of how the human body works.
[/QUOTE]

Tons of stuff is not covered by insurance companies because, even though there are physical effects/detriments, it’s not considered a medical necessity. Talk to women in pain/deformity due to pendulous breasts who can’t get a reduction because their IC deems it not medically necessary. A healthy back and shoulders is how the human body should work.

On this, we agree. Why do men get coverage on a prescription medication related to sex, but women don’t? Men can have sex without a hard-on but they have better sex with it. Women can have sex without the pill, but they can have better sex with it.

And don’t bring up condoms again. Unless you know of some kind of prescription condom.

95

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Are you still discussing insurance, or have you wandered into the welfare arena? I agree that the state has certain obligations to provide for the least of its brethren, those in dire need of medical assistance but with no means to pay for it. That does not mean every insurer needs to provide for every need anyone might want. They offer certain coverage, you decide if that does the trick for you. No? Okay, you needn’t purchase it.

Sorry if I keep hammering on this same theme, but that’s the essence for me. I wish my health insurer would give me a billion dollars for my mental health. I don’t see why it would, however. And since they don’t offer that benefit, I’m limited to the alternatives that the market offers. The world is not obliged to meet my needs. Sorry that seems to offend some.
[/QUOTE]

I do apologize; in my mind the two are, and ought to be, somewhat intertwined. I very strongly believe that America should be moving towards a system more like Britain’s NHS. It’s astonishing to me that in such an otherwise-wonderful country, people still not just suffer but die because they can’t afford the medical treatment they need. So, personally, I don’t see how any part of the current American health insurance system can be justified.

96

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
I don’t know that “able to get along in life” ought to be the defining criteria. I could “get along in life” without sight, without hearing, without a limb, with loss of intelligence, with some loss of motor skills, etc. I’d still be alive, but certainly my quality of life would be diminished. Are you saying that only that which keeps you from death is a medical necessity?

That’s a seperate argument. We weren’t arguing which is more frustrating; we were arguing which was a medical necessity. An erection is part of how the human body works. Preventing fertilization is not. And even if it were, why should The Pill be covered but not condoms, if both are being used for contraception?

Well I don’t think sex is a frill; I think it’s a need. But that’s another argument as well.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but if that guy can’t afford the full price for Viagra, can he afford to get his wife pregnant? I mean, really. This is horribly biased here. It’s alright for the guy to get viagra to treat his impotence but not for his wife to get birth control so they don’t have kids they can’t afford.

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]

It’s simple, then. Purchase health insurance that provides the coverage you want. Same for all of us.
[/quote]

And you know, in your perfect fairy land, I could just walk up to any place and purchase any plan I wanted to. In REALITY, the coverage I’d like would bankrupt me. And yeah, I could go find a better paying job. One I hate, one that makes having the insurance to cover my birth control a moot point because I’m so pissed off at my job that I don’t want to have sex. Maybe in your perfect fucking world, insurance is affordable. In mine, which is firmly based in reality, it is not. I have to take what my employer gives me.

And just FYI to everyone in this thread, I am on birth control. Now. Now that I’ve found a place that offers sliding scale Depo provera.

~Tasha

97

[QUOTE=niblet_head]
Why do men get coverage on a prescription medication related to sex, but women don’t? .
[/QUOTE]

But not all companies cover Viagra and quite a few cover “the Pill” so this statement is false.

Yes, it appears from stats shown here, more Companies do cover Viagra than “the Pill” but Planned Parenthood will get you the Pill free or cheaply but not Viagra.

98

[QUOTE=RedRosesForMe]
Yes, I do think that if insurance companies covered contraception there would be a decline in the birth rate, and abortion rate, and less money paid for prenatal care, etc.

The US has the highest unintended pregnancy rate of any industrialized nation- more than 50%. Those unintended pregnancies cost health insurance companies a lot of money.

But here’s the kicker- insurance companies know that women with the means to pay out-of-pocket for contraception will do it, so many still don’t cover it. The better off women get their birth control anyway, and the lower-income women just have to suck it up and hope they don’t get pregnant, using a less effective means of birth control like condoms.

The economic incentive is there- one of my earlier links referenced a study that found that covering contraception would save enough in costs related to unplanned pregnancies that insurance companies would save $40 per person annually. Yet a lot still don’t. And this is after several courts have ruled that insurance plans which provide prescription coverage but do not cover contraception are, in fact, discriminating against women.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see how a study could parse out the cause and effect in making this determination. First assumption - insurers cover the pill, so a large number of women who don’t currently use it will start to do so. Second assumption - these women over their lifetime will have less babies as a result of this, in sufficient numbers to change the economics of the insurer’s model.

Okay, let’s say this is so. Could the same result be achieved more cheaply by having insurers cover abortions instead ? Would it perhaps make more sense to have the US government make oral contraceptives available to all free of charge ?

Ultimately, is this drop in the birthrate a socially desirable outcome ? Just how much of a drop are we talking about ?
I’m still not seeing where the insurance companies have a socially-driven agenda (as ‘discriminatory’ practices would imply). A previous poster mentioned that there might be complex social forces at work in the business decisions of the insurers, but to demonstrate ‘discrimination’ you’d have to show the mechanism and maybe the motive, and so far I haven’t seen that. The whole Viagra red herring smacks of argument from emotion, and moral one-up-man-ship, and kind of undermines the whole point with regard to ‘discriminatory’ practices.

99

[QUOTE=NinjaChick]
I do apologize; in my mind the two are, and ought to be, somewhat intertwined. I very strongly believe that America should be moving towards a system more like Britain’s NHS. It’s astonishing to me that in such an otherwise-wonderful country, people still not just suffer but die because they can’t afford the medical treatment they need. So, personally, I don’t see how any part of the current American health insurance system can be justified.
[/QUOTE]
I would support such a system, in theory at least, but it’s difficult to envision such an entity here in the US being anything but a tremendously inefficient boondoggle. But I believe you and I agree that people ought to have basic health care coverage, and many do not (so there’s something wrong).

100

[QUOTE=tashabot]
And you know, in your perfect fairy land, I could just walk up to any place and purchase any plan I wanted to. In REALITY, the coverage I’d like would bankrupt me.
[/QUOTE]
tashabot, but that’s my point. You get what you pay for. Policies are priced based on the coverage, birth control one of many elements that go onto that formula.