# 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:** 5
**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 4, 2014, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/81 "2014-07-04T00:54:54Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Most tooth floss and toothpaste is OTC, items listed in your post. Ok, so we’ve dropped the tooth floss comparisons. Good. And my high end presentation was entirely reasonable, given the sort of experiences the uninsured face, and the oddities of the health care market. You don’t like the dental floss analogy, but that doesn’t make it bad. It’s a matter of degree, not kind. And we should be talking about what is a “typical” expense, not what is “reasonable”. I’m not even sure what “reasonable” means in this context. > [@](#): > > The argument I think you want to make John is, “Why not have a co-pay for contraceptive services? Or make those sorry folk pay 100% for birth control and 20% for viagra, but at least let them purchase it in-house?” It’s a rather different argument. I’ve said nothing about “sorry folks”. I have no idea why you are suggesting I am thinking along those lines. I thought I made it clear that I was talking about the other end of the spectrum. The “not sorry folks” who can afford to pay. > [@](#): > > My answer is reflects my ultra-liberal perspective. I know conservatives like to spend money hand over fist on $2 trillion pointless wars You’ll have to take that up with a conservative who likes that then. > [@](#): > > but some of us care about defending the taxpayer. As do I. > [@](#): > > And preventing unwanted pregnancy affects the balance sheets not just of the private insurance company, Your concern about the balance sheet of enormously successful companies is interesting, but not relevant. I’m going to go on the assumption that they know their business better than I do. > [@](#): > > but also of federal, state and local governments. If a mother already has 7 kids and doesn’t want an 8th, I’m willing to chip in for a goddamn IUD if she asks for it. How does that translate into: Make employers pay for contraceptives for everyone. That is the question being asked in this thread. No one so far is saying that people who cannot afford BC should not receive assistance in getting it. But if that woman has enough money to afford an 8th kid, I’m not willing to buy her in IUD, and frankly she shouldn’t be asking me to. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/82 "2014-07-04T01:02:36Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Do whiners complain about automobiles being sold without a lifetime supply of gasoline and tires? > > Let’s pause and look at the facts. As noted upthread, contraceptive coverage includes doctor’s visits which don’t come cheap. In practice oral contraceptives can cost $430 - $1210 per year, IUDs can cost $1000 every 5-10 years, injections can cost $200-600 per year, while the patch can cost $200 - $1200 per year. I don’t know where you buy your dental floss John, but maybe you should change suppliers. > > [http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/news/2012/02/15/11054/the-high-costs-of-birth-control/](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/news/2012/02/15/11054/the-high-costs-of-birth-control/) The low-end figures for oral contraception are more like $100 a year, not $430. [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2012-03-09/Birth-control-prices-range-widley-from-100-to-1000/53434126/1](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2012-03-09/Birth-control-prices-range-widley-from-100-to-1000/53434126/1) Truly indigent women – the kind for whom $25 a month for birth control is a real hardship – are likely either unemployed or hourly workers (and thus don’t have employer-provided insurance anyway), and are definitely eligible for Medicaid, which does cover contraception. There are two reasons people want to make employers pay for their contraception: 1. It’s a middle-class entitlement, and those are always popular. 2. It represents an official embrace of their sexual values. It’s a victory for sexual freedom, and a rebuke for those who think the linkage of sex and procreation is a good and natural thing. It’s a thumb in the eye of those bluenose prudes! If it was really just about ensuring access to contraception, it’d be easier and cheaper to just expand Medicaid to cover the employees of that small fraction of companies that have such objections. ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/83 "2014-07-04T01:20:02Z")
> [@furt](#): > > If it was really just about ensuring access to contraception, it’d be easier and cheaper to just expand Medicaid to cover the employees of that small fraction of companies that have such objections. That’s the conservative answer to everything: Just grow and expand the federal government instead of allowing private enterprise handle it… :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/84 "2014-07-04T01:36:10Z")
One of the absurdities here is that the same government that is taking my tax money money to subsidize child-bearing (think of the income tax deduction and many other benefits) is also making me pay, thorough my health insurance, for the prevention of child-bearing. From a standpoint of satisfying taxpayers, it makes a lot of sense. People who don’t want kids are glad the government mandates free birth control, and people who do want kids are glad there’s a child tax credit. But from a standpoint of public policy, it comes down to whether we think that there are too many births, or not enough. Personally, and this is probably not a popular position here, I’m pro-natalist. The US birth rate has been below replacement for the past several years, and this is going to be bad for the US economy. That makes it easy for me to say that getting pregnant is not an illness which the government needs to make it easier to prevent. If every unplanned baby wasn’t born, the birth dearth would become a disaster of Japanese or even Russian proportions. Young people – lots of young people – are going to have to be paying income tax if we are to be supported in our old age. So the claim that birth control saves society money is short-sighted. No woman should be forced to have a child, but free birth control is going too far in the other direction at a time when [US birth rates are at a record low.](http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/news/economy/birth-rate-low/) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/85 "2014-07-04T01:47:24Z")
> [@Victor\_Charlie](#): > > I don’t understand what you’re saying here. I don’t know of any instance where an employer tries to dictate what an employee is allowed to get. > > My question is simple: What’s so special about contraception that employers MUST provide it at no cost to employees to the exclusion of all other medications/treatments? I realize contraception saves billions. But, I’m sure immunizations save MUCH more and I still have to pay for those. No employer must provide contraception at no cost to their employees. Your premise is false. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/86 "2014-07-04T01:51:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No error. If I pay Joe to give you an apple, I’m providing you with an apple. There is nothing wrong with that usage. However, if you really can’t accept that, then change “provide” to “pay for”, and nothing else changes. Your analogy fails; it is inaccurate at best. If you had paid Joe to allow me to choose from a number of different fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses and other food items, you have not given me anything other than opportunity. What I do with that opportunity has nothing to do with you anymore; your role here is done. That’s why what I do with the money I earn at my job is none of my employer’s business; it isn’t their money anymore. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/87 "2014-07-04T01:56:26Z")
> [@standingwave](#): > > That’s the conservative answer to everything: Just grow and expand the federal government instead of allowing private enterprise handle it… :rolleyes: I’m not a conservative, but as a matter of practical politics, few of them are all that committed to limited government as a consistent principle. Liberals and Conservatives are pretty united on the idea that one of the main purposes of government is to make life difficult for people who believe differently from them. ---
**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 4, 2014, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/88 "2014-07-04T01:59:06Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > No employer must provide contraception at no cost to their employees. Your premise is false. If the government tells me that I have to pay **Marley** so that he can give you an apple, then I have provided you with an apple. What a silly semantic nit pick. And as I said to **Marley** , change “provide” to “pay for”, if you really insist, and nothing changes. Would you prefer we said “pay for” instead of “provide”? If so, how does that change anything? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/89 "2014-07-04T02:28:07Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yup. And as soon as you can get that through Congress… Public expenditures for family planning services totaled $2.37 billion in FY 2010. > **[Reproductive Health Impact Study](https://www.guttmacher.org/reproductive-health-impact-study)** ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/90 "2014-07-04T02:54:02Z")
> [@DingoelGringo](#): > > The USA is the only civilized country where all medical stuff is not free. Think about it. This is staggeringly ignorant. Nearly all developed countries have various kinds of mixed public-private parnerships that involve various kinds of fees and copays. See [France,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France#Fees_and_reimbursements) for example. The same is true[in the DR](http://www.newcabarete.com/dominican-republic-health-care-system/). Even in fully-subsidized systems like the UK’s NHS, there are procedures they won’t cover, and so it’s still not true that “all medical stuff is free.” Nice to hear someone gave you charity, but that’s not the norm. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/91 "2014-07-04T06:58:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But the government doesn’t require your employer to provide you with a plan that covers it. You brought up teeth. My point was that just as there is some birth control not covered (nor should it be) there is some birth control needing a doctor’s intervention that should be. > [@](#): > > Just for the record, what percent of women do you think can’t afford contraception? If it’s well south of 50%, why does the government need to force employers to pay for it for everyone? Especially when we know that certain types of BC can be controversial. Lots of people could afford checkups also, but those get covered. Besides the hassle of figuring out income levels (which change over time) thinks like birth control and checkups have a positive RoI, I’d suspect. Thus, the system as a whole benefits from making sure all use these products. You don’t see lawsuits against paying for checkups - if Jesus had said saying aah and bending over were sinful, you would. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/92 "2014-07-04T12:17:47Z")
[QUOTE=MsWhatsit] There is no war on women, and complaints to that effect are simply pandering to the base. [/QUOTE] Yes, this is basically accurate. There is a “war on women” in the same sense that there is a “war on Christmas”. Both are phrased the way they are to stir up the base. And, of course, in both cases partisans on either side will respond “THERE REALLY IS A WAR ON (my side) BUT THE OTHER SIDE IS LYING!!!” Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/93 "2014-07-04T13:17:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes, this is basically accurate. > > There is a “war on women” in the same sense that there is a “war on Christmas”. Both are phrased the way they are to stir up the base. And, of course, in both cases partisans on either side will respond “THERE REALLY IS A WAR ON (my side) BUT THE OTHER SIDE IS LYING!!!” > > Regards, > Shodan Not quite. Remove the “war” metaphor for a moment— there is an organized, concerted effort by the Right to oppose policies that would directly benefit women, and to impose policies that will negatively affect women. There is no organized effort by the Left to do anything whatsoever to Christmas. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/94 "2014-07-04T13:22:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > There is a “war on women” in the same sense that there is a “war on Christmas”. I agree, these are exactly the same. The “War on Christmas” consists of some businesses making the business decision not to use religiously specific greetings in December, and a few individuals attempting to make the government follow its own rules about religious displays in government venues. Likewise, the “War on Women” consists of one political party attempting to establish by law or by economic leverage diminished access to medical services relevant to women’s reproductive health. No difference whatsoever. All these whiners need to just shut up and grow a pair.\* Regards, Gorsnak \*Because if they had a pair then they’d be men and have opinions worthy of consideration.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/95 "2014-07-04T13:24:47Z")
Is it just me or is the rolleyes smiley not nearly sarcastic enough? ---
**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 4, 2014, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/96 "2014-07-04T14:21:59Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You brought up teeth. My point was that just as there is some birth control not covered (nor should it be) there is some birth control needing a doctor’s intervention that should be. You have stated that it should be, but you have not demonstrated why it should be. > [@](#): > > Lots of people could afford checkups also, but those get covered. Besides the hassle of figuring out income levels (which change over time) thinks like birth control and checkups have a positive RoI, I’d suspect. Thus, the system as a whole benefits from making sure all use these products. I think the insurance companies know the ROI better than you and I do. But if you want an independent analysis, [FACTCHECK says it’s unclear either way.](http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/cloudy-contraception-costs/) > [@](#): > > You don’t see lawsuits against paying for checkups - if Jesus had said saying aah and bending over were sinful, you would. Precisely. That’s what RFRA, which passed overwhelmingly in both houses of congress, is for. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/97 "2014-07-04T14:44:41Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Is it just me or is the rolleyes smiley not nearly sarcastic enough? It’s times like this I wish the sarcastrophe was more well-known. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/98 "2014-07-04T17:31:39Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > It’s more about employers not being allowed to dictate what medications, procedures, etc. the employees are allowed to get. Exactly - what if I went to work for PETA who refused to let me have my insulin, which IIRC is an animal derivative, or [do they still refuse medical treatment?] Christian Scientists who refuse to allow health insurance? [obviously if CS doesn’t still refuse medical treatment, make up some religion who thinks doctors, medicine and hospitals are all evil and refuse to allow it.] I really do not see why any form of medical treatment should even be discussed with ones employers at all - unless one is needing time off for an operation, or a change in hours to allow for PT [which did happen with me for 38 sessions] or light duty [and all that should be is a note from the doctor saying For medical reasons X is not allowed to pick up or carry more than 5 pounds/X is not allowed to walk more than 100 feet/stand for more than 1 hour or whatever.] ---
**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 4, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/99 "2014-07-04T17:43:27Z")
> [@running coach](#): > > It’s more about employers not being allowed to dictate what medications, procedures, etc. the employees are allowed to get. So, if I need a medical procedure, and you don’t agree to pay for it, then you are dictating which medical procedures I’m allowed to get? ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290/100 "2014-07-04T17:57:26Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > The doctor’s visit to get BC is covered by insurance. It would typically be discussed during the yearly exam. > > There are many over the counter contraception methods available. The diaphragm is a one-time cost of about $50. If a woman cannot afford expensive BC, there are many other affordable alternatives available. And then there is the contraceptive foam or gel used with it that is not a single cost item … [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-employers-have-to-pay-for-contraception-anyway/692290.md?page=6)