# Why must contraceptives be FREE? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2012, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375 "2012-03-21T04:22:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/41 "2012-03-21T14:59:57Z")
FWIW, TANSTAAFL isn’t really obscure, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/42 "2012-03-21T15:02:48Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > No, I think the poster has the responsibility to make his post understood. Throw in a puzzling acronym and it just slows the process down. Imagine it’s your first visit to the site, would you want to come back if people communicate in code? Geeze, dude, it’s an acronym that’s been around in popular culture for getting close to a hundred years now. Somehow it’s our fault that you don’t know it? Maybe we should provide a glossary of every word used at the bottom of each post for you as well, just in case someone has a larger vocabulary. ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/43 "2012-03-21T15:02:58Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > You want the SDMB admins to maintain a a dictionary of words you don’t know because you’re too lazy to look it up on Google? That’s an astonishing sense of entitlement you have there. It’s too bad [they don’t](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=320298). (Yes, I know that this list excludes common Internet abbreviations, including TANSTAAFL, but it does provide a handy link to them.) ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/44 "2012-03-21T15:10:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I agree. Contraceptives are like vaccinations. They’re a preventive against much higher medical expenses. So if you’re paying for any medical expenses, it makes sense to provide preventive treatment at the lowest possible cost. Obviously the question **Elendil’s Heir** wants to see addressed is, why are some people so obsessed about everyone getting all forms of contraception covered by insurance with no copay, while exhibiting no interest in getting other medications covered in the same manner. I have a copay for my anti-depressants. For me they’re not such a big deal, but for some people it may be a life-and-death matter. Surely paying for someone’s anti-depressants is cheaper than covering the costs of a suicide attempt. Why doesn’t Obama require that all insurance plans cover every existing anti-depressant with no copay? Aspirin prevents heart attacks. Why doesn’t Obama require that all insurance plans cover aspirin with no copay? Why doesn’t Obama require that all insurance plans cover all medications that might prevent a disease with no copay? What’s so special about birth control, that makes it more important than other medications that can prevent serious medical problems or even save lives? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/45 "2012-03-21T15:19:43Z")
> [@Mekhazzio](#): > > It’s all well and good to point out that free contraception isn’t the current goal, but it’s missing an opportunity to make the larger argument. So if nobody else will, I’ll take a swing at that bait. > > I think there’s a strong argument to be made that providing contraception serves society’s interests. Unwanted pregnancies have a significant cost, not just for the parents and families, but also in civil support, medical and, frequently, legal services. You also don’t have to look far to find a personal story of someone having to abandon their long-term goals because of a poorly timed childbirth, reducing their long-term contribution to society. Well, yeah, but for the last almost-40 years, the American response has been “abortion”. Many insurance programs covered no other “female health” items; only that one and only because of Roe vs. Wade. It’s as if they considered “being female” as “a preexisting condition”. I’ll accept the preexisting part, but not the notion that an uterus is an illness. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/46 "2012-03-21T15:22:25Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m pretty sure they thought it was intelligent policy. Wrong. Why did they wait until the Catholic Church started getting riled up about the previous rule to make it policy? It was a political move, nothing more. Of course when you start giving out things for “free” people are going to be on your side. This is the first commandment of the Democratic Party. It isn’t free at all, though. The insurance company has to buy the contraceptives still. They’ll just take the money from the policy holders. ---
**Author:** ![Sethcrzygy86](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c2a13f/32.png) [@Sethcrzygy86](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sethcrzygy86)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/47 "2012-03-21T15:27:19Z")
Insurance is not part of a person’s wages. If I decline my insurance at work, I don’t get that money in my paycheck. The company just saves paying its portion of my insurance. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/48 "2012-03-21T15:30:51Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Anything that costs money out of pocket will be subject to choices. Some people live paycheck to paycheck and if something unexpected comes up, they might forgo “preventative medicine”, which includes contraception. > > As pointed out above, the preventative medicine category are things that cost a small amount of money up front and can potentially save a large amount of money later on. > > Making those things ‘free’ (paid for within the insurance with no additional out of pocket costs) removes them from contention with other personal costs makes it more likely that people will follow through on them (saving the big money down the road). > > We don’t want someone to say – I haven’t had sex in a while, I’ll just go off the pill and save a few bucks so I can buy something for my kid, then meet someone unexpectedly and get pregnant. > > We want to prevent abortions, we want to make every pregnancy to be planned, and not subject to contention with other claims on personal spending. > > It’s a no brainer really. You ended your post quite nicely here. It is in fact a “no brainer”, because government is taking the need away from individuals to use their brain. Maybe we should be looking to government to decide other life decisions we might get “wrong”. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/49 "2012-03-21T15:33:18Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Why did they wait until the Catholic Church started getting riled up about the previous rule to make it policy? Why did the Catholic Church wait until now to get riled up about the previous rule? ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/50 "2012-03-21T15:47:59Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > I suspect many of her critics have never read her testimony and/or are OK with lying about what she said. Based on conversations I’ve ATTEMPTED to have with Teabaggers and other right-wing morons, I’d say you’re spot-on with that observation. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Obviously the question **Elendil’s Heir** wants to see addressed is, why are some people so obsessed about everyone getting all forms of contraception covered by insurance with no copay, while exhibiting no interest in getting other medications covered in the same manner. I have a copay for my anti-depressants. For me they’re not such a big deal, but for some people it may be a life-and-death matter. Surely paying for someone’s anti-depressants is cheaper than covering the costs of a suicide attempt. Why doesn’t Obama require that all insurance plans cover every existing anti-depressant with no copay? Aspirin prevents heart attacks. Why doesn’t Obama require that all insurance plans cover aspirin with no copay? Why doesn’t Obama require that all insurance plans cover all medications that might prevent a disease with no copay? What’s so special about birth control, that makes it more important than other medications that can prevent serious medical problems or even save lives? The major issue was that some EMPLOYERS (who happened to be religious institutions represented during the original hearings in front of Congress) wanted to prevent the insurance policies that they offer as a benefit from covering contraception AT ALL. Not offering them with co-pay. They didn’t want to be “forced” to offer insurance policies that provided reproductive health care for women AT ALL. Which places the employer in the position of making health care decisions for their employees instead of those decisions being made my doctors and patients. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/51 "2012-03-21T16:00:54Z")
> [@Sethcrzygy86](#): > > Insurance is not part of a person’s wages. If I decline my insurance at work, I don’t get that money in my paycheck. The company just saves paying its portion of my insurance. And yet my company includes the insurance premiums they pay as part of my total compensation package. Some historical perspective: Widespread employer paid medical insurance came about because of salary freezes during WWII which prevented employers from offering higher wages to woo employees. They are a form of compensation that employers offer. Just like a pension plan, a fitness center, and a company car. Hell, even parking can be considered compensation. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/52 "2012-03-21T16:10:44Z")
> [@Sethcrzygy86](#): > > Insurance is not part of a person’s wages. If I decline my insurance at work, I don’t get that money in my paycheck. The company just saves paying its portion of my insurance. That doesn’t mean it’s not part of your compensation, it just means that you’re comfortable leaving that money on the table. Good on you. Hey, it’s your money, you can leave it anywhere you like. Btw, your situation isn’t universal. I’ve worked for companies that DO offer you the option of extra cash if you decline their insurance. ---
**Author:** ![tullsterx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tullsterx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tullsterx)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/53 "2012-03-21T16:11:19Z")
> [@Mekhazzio](#): > > It’s all well and good to point out that free contraception isn’t the current goal, but it’s missing an opportunity to make the larger argument. So if nobody else will, I’ll take a swing at that bait. > > I think there’s a strong argument to be made that providing contraception serves society’s interests. Unwanted pregnancies have a significant cost, not just for the parents and families, but also in civil support, medical and, frequently, legal services. You also don’t have to look far to find a personal story of someone having to abandon their long-term goals because of a poorly timed childbirth, reducing their long-term contribution to society. > > The best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is to make it easier to obtain effective contraception, and it doesn’t get any easier than to provide it on the taxpayer’s dime. Considering the scale of the social costs, the program will almost certainly be a net gain in the end. Implementing large scale solutions that save society money in the long run while also improving the general quality of life is exactly what government is for. Exactly, and well stated. And, I’d like to point out that the political divide over this issue is primarily due to the “individualistic” position of conservatives vs the “socialistic” position of most liberals. It’s not due to Republicans hating women; it’s not due to Democrats wanting everything to be free for everyone; its due to Republicans being more concerned about the independence of the individual and Democrats being more concerned about the welfare of all at the cost of the individual. Our history is filled with such debates and finding a balance between the two is best. That said. . . I’ve always used a rubber and had to pay for them myself. . . and I don’t think there’s a rubber mandate in the healthcare bill. . . but, frankly I’m just glad I don’t have to give birth, so we’ll leave it at that. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/54 "2012-03-21T16:14:00Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > And yet my company includes the insurance premiums they pay as part of my total compensation package. Yep… same here. Each year the company sends me a nice glossy report of all the wonderful things they do for me, and at the bottom there’s a big fat number that includes insurance premiums. But to answer the OP, when the government wants to get its hand in socializing healthcare, it’s not about helping individual people. It’s about helping society in the aggregate. Preventive medicine is massively beneficial to society because treatment costs so much more than prevention. Birth control can be considered a general case of preventive medicine because by preventing people, you prevent treatments. And of course there are so many other social costs reduced by avoiding unwanted pregnancy. In that light, spending a thousand bucks a year on birth control is much more compelling than treating life-threatening conditions. You may not agree with the morality of it, but the logic makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/55 "2012-03-21T16:14:01Z")
> [@Kolga](#): > > The major issue was that some EMPLOYERS (who happened to be religious institutions represented during the original hearings in front of Congress) wanted to prevent the insurance policies that they offer as a benefit from covering contraception AT ALL. Not offering them with co-pay. They didn’t want to be “forced” to offer insurance policies that provided reproductive health care for women AT ALL. Which places the employer in the position of making health care decisions for their employees instead of those decisions being made my doctors and patients. That doesn’t explain why we see people so obsessed with the need to cover birth control while apparently not caring about coverage of anything else. My employer shopped for insurance plans and chose a plan that requires a sizable copay for my anti-depressants. While I can pay it without difficulty, a poorer employee could have trouble making that copay. So with regard to such a poorer employee, wouldn’t the employer be “in the position of making health care decisions”? If so, then how is that situation with anti-depressants any different from the same decision with birth control? Further, though you wouldn’t know it from listening to Democratic Party announcements, Obama’s mandate does not cover all employers. Employers who hire fewer than fifty employees are not covered by the mandate. So if it’s wrong for employers to make health care decisions for their employees, why aren’t the liberal activists all worked up about the prospect of employers with less than fifty employees having exactly that power? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/56 "2012-03-21T16:15:09Z")
> [@Sethcrzygy86](#): > > Insurance is not part of a person’s wages. If I decline my insurance at work, I don’t get that money in my paycheck. The company just saves paying its portion of my insurance. Why do they pay for it in the first place? You do understand the difference between wages and compensation, right? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/57 "2012-03-21T16:17:17Z")
It is good policy to provide simple preventative medicines and care, even where inexpensive, as part of health insurance. This is widely agreed. If such medical care is mandated, lines need to be drawn. Since, IIRC, many contraceptives are available only with prescription, drawing the line to include them is logical. Color me libertarian, but I would prefer a system where government provides basic taxpayer-financed care for everyone, and private insurance companies are free to tailor private extended coverage with few restrictions. I’m quite doubtful about claims that Democrats have forced coverage of contraceptives and abortions to provoke right-wing idiocy, and then garner votes from the backlash against such idiocy. I’d guess the opposite: that Republicans are happy to see such “wedge issues” installed in health-care legislation to help keep their base enraged. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/58 "2012-03-21T16:19:44Z")
> [@tullsterx](#): > > Exactly, and well stated. > > And, I’d like to point out that the political divide over this issue is primarily due to the “individualistic” position of conservatives vs the “socialistic” position of most liberals. It’s not due to Republicans hating women; it’s not due to Democrats wanting everything to be free for everyone; its due to Republicans being more concerned about the independence of the individual and Democrats being more concerned about the welfare of all at the cost of the individual. Our history is filled with such debates and finding a balance between the two is best. > > That said. . . I’ve always used a rubber and had to pay for them myself. . . and I don’t think there’s a rubber mandate in the healthcare bill. . . but, frankly I’m just glad I don’t have to give birth, so we’ll leave it at that. If you honestly think the Republican position can be comfortably described as a concern for the independence of the individual, I’ve got a shitload of “what abouts” ready for you to address. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/59 "2012-03-21T16:24:05Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > That doesn’t explain why we see people so obsessed with the need to cover birth control while apparently not caring about coverage of anything else. My employer shopped for insurance plans and chose a plan that requires a sizable copay for my anti-depressants. While I can pay it without difficulty, a poorer employee could have trouble making that copay. So with regard to such a poorer employee, wouldn’t the employer be “in the position of making health care decisions”? If so, then how is that situation with anti-depressants any different from the same decision with birth control? > > Further, though you wouldn’t know it from listening to Democratic Party announcements, Obama’s mandate does not cover all employers. Employers who hire fewer than fifty employees are not covered by the mandate. So if it’s wrong for employers to make health care decisions for their employees, why aren’t the liberal activists all worked up about the prospect of employers with less than fifty employees having exactly that power? I pay no copay for wellness visits or preventive services under my health plan, but I do when I go in for treatment when I’m sick. I didn’t ever think to be up in arms about the injustice of it all. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375/60 "2012-03-21T16:25:12Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Obviously the question **Elendil’s Heir** wants to see addressed is, why are some people so obsessed about everyone getting all forms of contraception covered by insurance with no copay, while exhibiting no interest in getting other medications covered in the same manner. I have a copay for my anti-depressants. For me they’re not such a big deal, but for some people it may be a life-and-death matter. Surely paying for someone’s anti-depressants is cheaper than covering the costs of a suicide attempt. Why doesn’t Obama require that all insurance plans cover every existing anti-depressant with no copay? Aspirin prevents heart attacks. Why doesn’t Obama require that all insurance plans cover aspirin with no copay? Why doesn’t Obama require that all insurance plans cover all medications that might prevent a disease with no copay? What’s so special about birth control, that makes it more important than other medications that can prevent serious medical problems or even save lives? What’s so special about vaccinations? What’s so special about fluoride treatments? Here is the [list of things](http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html#CoveredPreventiveServicesforAdults) requiring no co pay. What do they all (including birth control) have in common? They lower costs of health care. Should more things be on the list? Probably. Do you believe parents should need to pay out of pocket for the MMR vaccine because insurance doesn’t have to pay for aspirin? Actually, guess what? Aspirin is on the no-copay list: [QUOTE=link above] Aspirin use for men and women of certain ages [/QUOTE] Be upfront about the fact that **you** find contraception special and different from other preventative care on moral grounds. Otherwise you should be just as upset at the fact that HIV screenings and aspirin are on the list. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Wrong. Why did they wait until the Catholic Church started getting riled up about the previous rule to make it policy? It was a political move, nothing more. Of course when you start giving out things for “free” people are going to be on your side. This is the first commandment of the Democratic Party. > > It isn’t free at all, though. The insurance company has to buy the contraceptives still. They’ll just take the money from the policy holders. Unless I am mistaken, the contraception rule was first proposed over six months ago. During the public comment period the Catholic Church objected to the requirement for religious affiliates to also have birth control coverage so recently the administration modified the rule in an attempt to compromise. The timelines I have seen go like this: March 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passes August 1, 2011: As per PPAPA HHS releases new rules to go into effect August 2012 February 2012: Rules modified based on public comment [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-must-contraceptives-be-free/616375.md?page=4)