# Why should employers have to pay for contraception anyway? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290 "2014-07-03T18:46:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/41 "2014-07-03T19:57:35Z")
> [@Victor\_Charlie](#): > > If you look at the list of treatments required with no copay that’s certainly the case. Not at all. Look at the services for children: a lot of them are unrelated to disease prevention. The same goes for some of the counseling services for adults and benefits like depression screening, folic acid for pregnant women, tobacco use screening, and “well-woman visits to get recommended services for women under 65.” > [@Stratocaster](#): > > You may be right. But I rarely see a chance at fueling the fire of the “war on women” ignored Perhaps if Republicans stopped advocating so many policies that would suck for women, it wouldn’t be such a thing. > [@](#): > > I still see no other reason why contraceptives need to be utterly free. In many cases they need to be taken regularly for years on end. The costs add up. > [@](#): > > Perhaps I need to adjust my tin foil hat, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the ONLY reason the other preventative care is without co-pays is so that contraceptives can be. I’d ditch the hat entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/42 "2014-07-03T19:58:12Z")
> [@Victor\_Charlie](#): > > why was contraception singled out by the government for special consideration anyway? Was it? From Antinor01’s list: > [@](#): > > Preventive health services for adults > > Most health plans must cover a set of preventive services like shots and screening tests at no cost to you. This includes Marketplace private insurance plans. > Free preventive services > > All Marketplace plans and many other plans must cover the following list of preventive services without charging you a copayment or coinsurance. This is true even if you haven’t met your yearly deductible. This applies only when these services are delivered by a network provider. > > ``` > Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked > Alcohol Misuse screening and counseling > Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of certain ages > Blood Pressure screening for all adults > Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk > Colorectal Cancer screening for adults over 50 > Depression screening for adults > Diabetes (Type 2) screening for adults with high blood pressure > Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease > HIV screening for everyone ages 15 to 65, and other ages at increased risk > > Immunization vaccines for adults--doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary: > Hepatitis A > Hepatitis B > Herpes Zoster > Human Papillomavirus > Influenza (Flu Shot) > Measles, Mumps, Rubella > Meningococcal > Pneumococcal > Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis > Varicella > > Obesity screening and counseling for all adults > Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk > Syphilis screening for all adults at higher risk > Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users > > ``` and > [@](#): > > Comprehensive coverage for women’s preventive care > > All Marketplace health plans and many other plans must cover the following list of preventive services for women without charging you a copayment or coinsurance. This is true even if you haven’t met your yearly deductible. > > This applies only when these services are delivered by an in-network provider. > > ``` > Anemia screening on a routine basis for pregnant women > Breast Cancer Genetic Test Counseling (BRCA) for women at higher risk for breast cancer > Breast Cancer Mammography screenings every 1 to 2 years for women over 40 > Breast Cancer Chemoprevention counseling for women at higher risk > Breastfeeding comprehensive support and counseling from trained providers, and access to breastfeeding supplies, for pregnant and nursing women > Cervical Cancer screening for sexually active women > Chlamydia Infection screening for younger women and other women at higher risk > Contraception: Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, as prescribed by a health care provider for women with reproductive capacity (not including abortifacient drugs). This does not apply to health plans sponsored by certain exempt “religious employers.” > Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling for all women > Folic Acid supplements for women who may become pregnant > Gestational diabetes screening for women 24 to 28 weeks pregnant and those at high risk of developing gestational diabetes > Gonorrhea screening for all women at higher risk > Hepatitis B screening for pregnant women at their first prenatal visit > HIV screening and counseling for sexually active women > Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Test every 3 years for women with normal cytology results who are 30 or older > Osteoporosis screening for women over age 60 depending on risk factors > Rh Incompatibility screening for all pregnant women and follow-up testing for women at higher risk > Sexually Transmitted Infections counseling for sexually active women > Syphilis screening for all pregnant women or other women at increased risk > Tobacco Use screening and interventions for all women, and expanded counseling for pregnant tobacco users > Urinary tract or other infection screening for pregnant women > Well-woman visits to get recommended services for women under 65 > > ``` and > [@](#): > > Coverage for children’s preventive health services > > All Marketplace health plans and many other plans must cover the following list of preventive services for children without charging you a copayment or coinsurance. This is true even if you haven’t met your yearly deductible. > > ``` > Alcohol and Drug Use assessments for adolescents > Autism screening for children at 18 and 24 months > Behavioral assessments for children at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years. > Blood Pressure screening for children at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years , 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years. > Cervical Dysplasia screening for sexually active females > Depression screening for adolescents > Developmental screening for children under age 3 > Dyslipidemia screening for children at higher risk of lipid disorders at the following ages: 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years. > Fluoride Chemoprevention supplements for children without fluoride in their water source > Gonorrhea preventive medication for the eyes of all newborns > Hearing screening for all newborns > Height, Weight and Body Mass Index measurements for children at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years. > Hematocrit or Hemoglobin screening for children > Hemoglobinopathies or sickle cell screening for newborns > HIV screening for adolescents at higher risk > Hypothyroidism screening for newborns > > Immunization vaccines for children from birth to age 18 —doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary: > Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis > Haemophilus influenzae type b > Hepatitis A > Hepatitis B > Human Papillomavirus > Inactivated Poliovirus > Influenza (Flu Shot) > Measles, Mumps, Rubella > Meningococcal > Pneumococcal > Rotavirus > Varicella > > Iron supplements for children ages 6 to 12 months at risk for anemia > > Lead screening for children at risk of exposure > Medical History for all children throughout development at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years , 5 to 10 years , 11 to 14 years , 15 to 17 years. > Obesity screening and counseling > Oral Health risk assessment for young children Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years. > Phenylketonuria (PKU) screening for this genetic disorder in newborns > Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling and screening for adolescents at higher risk > Tuberculin testing for children at higher risk of tuberculosis at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years. > Vision screening for all children. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/43 "2014-07-03T20:08:37Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Can you point out the straw there? It looks to be a fair summary of your posts to this thread so far IMO. Can you explain how your position differs from that summary? Okay. > [@](#): > > 1. There is no war on women, and complaints to that effect are simply pandering to the base. > > 2. Preventive care targeted at men is a-ok, no problem paying for this. > > 3. Preventive care targeted at women is nonsense, unnecessary, and if women want it they can pay for it themselves. > > 4. Again, nobody has a problem with women. Women are great. 1. Not even sure how to respond to this. Do you believe “war on women” has a definitive meaning, beyond being a convenient political sound bite? What might be a reasonable inference from my posts? Maybe, “People who oppose certain pet causes for the Dems, such as free contraceptives, are demonized and described as having no other motive than hostility to women’s well being. This certainly is fodder for that blather.” I do think women are great, though. Some of them, anyway. 2. I didn’t say it was okay. I actually oppose ACA without many reservations. I did say this aspect wasn’t playing to the base or pandering to those who weep for their version of women’s causes. On account of, um, it isn’t for women (for one thing) and I’m not aware that abdominal aortic aneurysm screenings for men are a pet cause for, well, anyone. 3. Not sure I need to defend this at all. Where did I say such a sweeping statement? I said, essentially, that “no co-pays for contraceptives” was largely a politically motivated decision. 4. I certainly have a problem with some women. 😃 What do you think this one meant, BTW? I can’t tell. Can you tell me what aspect of my posts it accurately summarizes? ---
**Author:** ![Victor\_Charlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7ea924/32.png) [@Victor\_Charlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Victor_Charlie)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/44 "2014-07-03T20:24:18Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > Which of those other medications are for preventative care? The purpose of covering preventative at no cost is to encourage people to GET preventative care so they don’t need those other medications. (or at least, not need them as much) > > If we screen for things like diabetes, we can avoid having to cover insulin and other treatment for it. If we provide contraception, we can avoid paying for unwanted pregnancies, abortions, cost of medical care for additional children people aren’t ready for, etc. All the medications on the list are for what is traditionally considered preventive care. Using your logic (which isn’t bad logic, btw) all kinds of medications prevent bigger problems. Antibiotics can prevent an accidental cut or unwanted dog bite from turning into a deadly infection, emergency visit or even amputation. All very expensive. Antidepressants can prevent illegal drug abuse and suicide, both with enormous public health consequences, not to mention the toll depression has on families and relationships. I’ve already mentioned anti-seizure medications. Anyone of us here can think of countless examples without much effort. Are we talking about preventing disease? Because unwanted or not, a pregnancy is not a disease. And, though it’s unpopular to say, is COMPLETELY preventable without a pill (aside, of course, from rape.) Or are we talking about cost benefits? Because there are actual diseases that are NOT preventable without medication that are more expensive than childbirth. What makes birth control so much more important than those that users can’t be expected to make even the smallest copay? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/45 "2014-07-03T20:27:56Z")
Again: contraceptives have uses beyond just preventing pregnancy, **Victor Charlie**. ---
**Author:** ![Victor\_Charlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7ea924/32.png) [@Victor\_Charlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Victor_Charlie)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/46 "2014-07-03T20:28:01Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Was it? > > From Antinor01’s list: > > andand Fine. The pill is on a short list of medications that must be provided free-of-charge. Why it and not any number of other medications that treat or prevent actual diseases or conditions that aren’t caused by behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Victor\_Charlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7ea924/32.png) [@Victor\_Charlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Victor_Charlie)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/47 "2014-07-03T20:34:59Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Again: contraceptives have uses beyond just preventing pregnancy, **Victor Charlie**. And, again, so do other medications that aren’t free. Prozac can be used for smoking cessation and often has the benefit of weight control. Cholesterol-lowering statins can reduce the spread of cancer or even help with erectile dysfunction. Estrogen therapy significantly reduces breast cancer. I’m sure a quick Google search would turn up any number of other examples. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/48 "2014-07-03T20:38:38Z")
> [@Victor\_Charlie](#): > > And, again, so do other medications that aren’t free. The ‘pregnancy isn’t a disease thing’ is still a canard, though. So is this: > [@Victor\_Charlie](#): > > Why it and not any number of other medications that treat or prevent actual diseases or conditions that aren’t caused by behavior. I didn’t know endometriosis and hormone problems weren’t “actual” disease and were caused by behavior, doctor. ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/49 "2014-07-03T20:38:42Z")
I also agree that **contraception** should not be part of a **government mandated** level of coverage. I think it’s a good idea, but it’s not something which should be a mandated part of the coverage. I think the Dr’s visit should be covered to talk about it, but not the transaction at the pharmacy. To be clear, I’m talking about when the drug or device is used just to prevent pregnancy for convenience reasons. I don’t think condoms, foam, sponges, IUD’s, BC pills etc used as a convenient way to prevent pregnancy should be part of the government mandated coverage. If they are used for an actual medical condition or to prevent illness, then that’s fine. But not when it’s only for contraception. As an example, consider finasteride. It can be used to treat baldness or blood pressure. ACA should cover it when it’s prescribed for blood pressure but not for baldness. The BC medications should be the same way. If it’s used to prevent bad periods, reduce the risk for cancer, etc, then it should be covered. ACA made a huge mistake to include contraception coverage. It gives the critics a huge target to legitimately attack. It would be like if gym memberships had to be covered. If they didn’t say anything about contraception, then Dr’s could just code the treatment as a medical condition like an irregular period or something. But now all the critics have this big hook to hang their lawsuits off of which may end up damaging other parts of the ACA. ---
**Author:** ![Victor\_Charlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7ea924/32.png) [@Victor\_Charlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Victor_Charlie)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/50 "2014-07-03T20:49:23Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The ‘pregnancy isn’t a disease thing’ is still a canard, though. So is this: > > I didn’t know endometriosis and hormone problems weren’t “actual” disease and were caused by behavior, doctor. Canard or not, it’s no less true. And, let’s be real. The pill isn’t free because it prevents endometriosis. If that’s all it did, it probably wouldn’t be free. Several women in my family are on hormone treatment that’s WAY, WAY more effective than the pill and they’re not getting it for free. You’re insisting it should be free because of the cost and health benefits it provides. Fine. Should all medications that provide legitimate cost and health benefits also be provided free-of-charge? ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/51 "2014-07-03T20:57:53Z")
> [@Victor\_Charlie](#): > > All the medications on the list are for what is traditionally considered preventive care. > > Using your logic (which isn’t bad logic, btw) all kinds of medications prevent bigger problems. Antibiotics can prevent an accidental cut or unwanted dog bite from turning into a deadly infection, emergency visit or even amputation. All very expensive. Antidepressants can prevent illegal drug abuse and suicide, both with enormous public health consequences, not to mention the toll depression has on families and relationships. I’ve already mentioned anti-seizure medications. Anyone of us here can think of countless examples without much effort. > > Are we talking about preventing disease? Because unwanted or not, a pregnancy is not a disease. And, though it’s unpopular to say, is COMPLETELY preventable without a pill (aside, of course, from rape.) > > Or are we talking about cost benefits? Because there are actual diseases that are NOT preventable without medication that are more expensive than childbirth. > > What makes birth control so much more important than those that users can’t be expected to make even the smallest copay? We are talking about preventative care. Antibiotics are not preventative Who needs anti-seizure medication unless they have a condition already? Antidepressants are given to people who have a condition. None of the things you mention involve prevention, they are treatment. Serious question, do you understand what preventative care is? The decision was made to have preventative care covered at no extra cost (for the reasons I mentioned earlier and probably others). Regardless of anyones feelings on the subject, contraception is preventative, therefore it gets included. ---
**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:** [July 3, 2014, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/52 "2014-07-03T21:03:30Z")
> [@Victor\_Charlie](#): > > Put aside your opinion of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision for a moment. Even if you accept that the rather inefficient system of employer-provided medical insurance is the way to go, why was contraception singled out by the government for special consideration anyway? There are any number of other medications/treatments that provide even more bigger public health benefits, immunizations being one of the biggest. Why choose birth control as the one employers are required to provide? Pretty good question, and there’s no obvious answer other than the one **Stratocaster** gave: it’s a purely political decision by the Obama Administration, which desperately needs to get the Democratic ‘base’ to the polls in November. At the moment, things aren’t looking terribly good for the Democrats. As I mentioned [in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=722767), most forms of birth control cost money under Obamacare. That’s because they’re prescription medications, and thus any woman who wants one needs to see a doctor, and most doctor visits cost money. So if the Democrats who are howling about the Hobby Lobby decision actually cared at all about “access to birth control”, and actually believed that it was horrible for any woman to have to pay a small amount to get birth control, they would be addressing the cost of a doctor’s visit. (Or perhaps just making birth control pills over-the-counter.) But I don’t see the Democrats even attempting to do this. Logical conclusion: Democrats couldn’t care less how much women have to pay for birth control. Their bleating about the contraception mandate and related court cases is purely political, and entirely dishonest. Of course there’s not the slightest evidence that any woman anywhere in the country is having any difficulty affording birth control, much less that any woman using her employer’s insurance offerings is having such trouble. Further evidence that for the Democrats it’s dishonest and all for show. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/53 "2014-07-03T21:06:27Z")
I’m sure Congressional Republicans would fall over themselves in a rush to support measures that reduced the cost of birth control. That would fit perfectly with their agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/54 "2014-07-03T21:15:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Pretty good question, and there’s no obvious answer other than the one **Stratocaster** gave: it’s a purely political decision by the Obama Administration, which desperately needs to get the Democratic ‘base’ to the polls in November. At the moment, things aren’t looking terribly good for the Democrats. > > As I mentioned [in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=722767), most forms of birth control cost money under Obamacare. That’s because they’re prescription medications, and thus any woman who wants one needs to see a doctor, and most doctor visits cost money. So if the Democrats who are howling about the Hobby Lobby decision actually cared at all about “access to birth control”, and actually believed that it was horrible for any woman to have to pay a small amount to get birth control, they would be addressing the cost of a doctor’s visit. (Or perhaps just making birth control pills over-the-counter.) But I don’t see the Democrats even attempting to do this. Logical conclusion: Democrats couldn’t care less how much women have to pay for birth control. Their bleating about the contraception mandate and related court cases is purely political, and entirely dishonest. > > Of course there’s not the slightest evidence that any woman anywhere in the country is having any difficulty affording birth control, much less that any woman using her employer’s insurance offerings is having such trouble. Further evidence that for the Democrats it’s dishonest and all for show. I noted in the other thread that regular preventative care visits are normally at no cost. (I checked Kaiser and Blue Cross since they are the largest in CA) ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/55 "2014-07-03T21:54:23Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > P So if the Democrats who are howling about the Hobby Lobby decision actually cared at all about “access to birth control”, and actually believed that it was horrible for any woman to have to pay a small amount to get birth control, they would be addressing the cost of a doctor’s visit. (Or perhaps just making birth control pills over-the-counter.) But I don’t see the Democrats even attempting to do this. Logical conclusion: Democrats couldn’t care less how much women have to pay for birth control. Their bleating about the contraception mandate and related court cases is purely political, and entirely dishonest. BC pills from a doctor aren’t the only option for birth control. There are many other forms of BC that don’t need regular doctor visits or doctor visits at all. That’s why it shouldn’t have been included. There are many other reasonable options for BC other than doctor prescribed methods. If there is a medical reason that BC pills are the only viable form of contraception available to her, then likely it’s for a medical reason and would be covered anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Victor\_Charlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7ea924/32.png) [@Victor\_Charlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Victor_Charlie)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/56 "2014-07-03T22:01:01Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > We are talking about preventative care. Antibiotics are not preventative Who needs anti-seizure medication unless they have a condition already? Antidepressants are given to people who have a condition. None of the things you mention involve prevention, they are treatment. Serious question, do you understand what preventative care is? > > The decision was made to have preventative care covered at no extra cost (for the reasons I mentioned earlier and probably others). Regardless of anyones feelings on the subject, contraception is preventative, therefore it gets included. We’ve already been around this part of the discussion. I’ve made it clear I understand the definition of preventive care. My question goes beyond that. Why is the government interested in preventive care? To reduce the cost of healthcare, right? Why should maintenance medications be excluded just because they’re not classified as preventive? Glaucoma drops are a lot less expensive than blindness. Statins are less expensive than heart disease. Thyroid treatment is less expensive than everything it treats. And, again, those are actual diseases. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/57 "2014-07-03T22:14:01Z")
> [@Victor\_Charlie](#): > > We’ve already been around this part of the discussion. I’ve made it clear I understand the definition of preventive care. My question goes beyond that. Why is the government interested in preventive care? To reduce the cost of healthcare, right? Why should maintenance medications be excluded just because they’re not classified as preventive? Glaucoma drops are a lot less expensive than blindness. Statins are less expensive than heart disease. Thyroid treatment is less expensive than everything it treats. > > And, again, those are actual diseases. Cost is a factor, improving overall health is another. One goal is to focus more on health care as opposed to ‘sick’ care. Working to prevent health problems, or identify them early leads to a healthier population. There are factors like work productivity. If you can help someone prevent…say cardiovascular problems then they will be at work more often, benefiting the economy as a whole. Calling out preventative care to be fully covered creates an easy to identify part of overall health care that has a lot of benefit. If you expand it to treatment, how do you define it? Should they just say “all treatment must be covered at no out of pocket cost”? It’s not a perfect system by any means, but encouraging people to get a physical, be tested for common, chronic problems and work to NOT get them is a huge plus. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/58 "2014-07-03T22:15:27Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Sorry, IMO, there’s only one right answer: Because it is a political pet cause that the base loves and that adds fuels to the “war on women” nonsense for anyone who opposes it. This was a solution in search of a problem. All this gnashing of teeth over the dire implications for women’s health resulting from the decision is laughable. If there is a tiny percentage of women who can’t afford the birth control they need, the solution this called for was NOT, “Let’s make birth control free for all women everywhere, and this must be covered by their health insurer.” [You don’t say!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17509689&postcount=19)😉 ---
**Author:** ![Victor\_Charlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7ea924/32.png) [@Victor\_Charlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Victor_Charlie)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/59 "2014-07-03T22:15:42Z")
Maybe this is a better question: Why do insurance companies need a mandate to provide contraception for free? From a purely financial standpoint they should want to pay for as few births as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/60 "2014-07-03T22:21:16Z")
> [@Victor\_Charlie](#): > > Maybe this is a better question: Why do insurance companies need a mandate to provide contraception for free? From a purely financial standpoint they should want to pay for as few births as possible. Not gonna disagree with you there. Having been in insurance for nearly 2 decades, I still couldn’t really say. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290.md?page=4)