Why should employers have to pay for contraception anyway?

[Marley23]

@Victor_Charlie

All other preventive care is for the prevention of disease.

I’m not sure that’s really true, as it comes off as a big oversimplification.

There are certainly enormous costs associated with childbirth, but are we really equating them with the cost of disease-prevention?

Birth control has other benefits.

[MsWhatsit]

@Victor_Charlie

All other preventive care is for the prevention of disease. There are certainly enormous costs associated with childbirth, but are we really equating them with the cost of disease-prevention? If public health is our primary concern, wouldn’t covering antibiotics be more prudent?

We simul-posted.

Antibiotics are not generally considered preventive care. That is not to say they aren’t important, but they are not something you would give preemptively in order to prevent future disease. (There are exceptions for specific conditions, etc., but that’s not really relevant to the point under discussion.)

[Stratocaster]

@Marley23

The words “IMO” and “there’s only one right answer” make absolutely zero sense together. Part of the answer - and somehow you seem unaware of this - is that birth control is both a very important health benefit for a lot of women and a very controversial subject.

Hmm? Why can’t someone have an opinion that there’s really only one proper conclusion to a question posed?

What I am aware of is that you either missed or ignored all my posts. I believed the OP was asking, “Why such coverage and why must it be free? Why no co-pays like for other coverage?” He subsequently confirmed that. So, my answer (to that specific question) is the same: Because it plays to the base and feeds the “war on women” jive. There is no reason why contraceptives need to be covered at no charge, why that it is the only answer to this “very important health benefit.”

[MsWhatsit]

So do you also feel that abdominal aortic aneurysm screenings for men are playing to the base and pandering to the war on women? Because that is also included under covered preventive care.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Victor_Charlie

All other preventive care is for the prevention of disease. There are certainly enormous costs associated with childbirth, but are we really equating them with the cost of disease-prevention? If public health is our primary concern, wouldn’t covering antibiotics be more prudent?

The Pill is prescribed for a variety of reasons other than as a contraceptive.

Pill perk #1: Lower cancer risk

Pill perk #2: Clearer skin

Pill perk #3: Lighter, less painful periods

Pill perk #4: PMS relief

Pill perk #5: Endometriosis relief SOURCE

[Stratocaster]

@MsWhatsit

So do you also feel that abdominal aortic aneurysm screenings for men are playing to the base and pandering to the war on women? Because that is also included under covered preventive care.

No, I don’t. Glad I could be of assistance, no need to thank me.

[Victor_Charlie]

@Mr.Miskatonic

Last I checked most insurance plans do cover antiboitics.

And I certainly do not consider antibiotics to be preventative medicine. If you think they are you are part of a lot of problems.

You just ignored both of my points. Of course insurance plans cover antibiotics. But they charge a copay. Antibiotics are rarely free. I specifically acknowledge they’re not preventive, but they fight actual diseases. Pregnancies are expensive, but not as expensive as gangrene.

If reducing costs are the litmus test for whether or not a medication should be free, aren’t most medications cheaper than the afflictions they treat? There are medications that PREVENT catastrophic seizures, but they can be exorbitantly expensive. It’s a lot easier for someone with epilepsy to avoid getting pregnant without a pill than it is for her to avoid a seizure.

[Procrustus]

If anything is going to be mandated, contraception seems like a good thing to be on the list. It is important to a huge portion of the population, and there is no rational objection it.

[MsWhatsit]

@Stratocaster

No, I don’t. Glad I could be of assistance, no need to thank me.

Mm. So:

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.

I believe I will thank you, actually, for clarifying this entire argument for us. Well done.

[Victor_Charlie]

@Marley23

I’m not sure that’s really true, as it comes off as a big oversimplification.

Birth control has other benefits.

If you look at the list of treatments required with no copay that’s certainly the case.

Yes, birth control has other benefits… as do other medications that usually require copays.

[Human_Action]

@Marley23

Unless I’ve forgotten something, employers didn’t have to pay for contraception coverage. If they objected on religious grounds, they didn’t have to pay at all. Their insurance would just cover it anyway and the federal government would repay them in the form of subsidies. However even that was insufficient for some people who just don’t want women to get birth control.

If you mean Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, they weren’t eligible for the religious exemption, which only extends to “houses of worship…and religiously affiliated not-for-profits”.

Source

[Marley23]

@Stratocaster

Hmm? Why can’t someone have an opinion that there’s really only one proper conclusion to a question posed?

Maybe I’m treating “IMO” and “IMHO” as equivalent. But you’re acknowledging that there are other opinions and then rejecting their existence at the same time. Anyway that’s separate from the fact that what you wrote is just plain wrong and the other explanations make more sense. Not everything is about baiting Congressional Republicans- although it’s sort of refreshing to see their idiocy described as a political coup by Democrats, who don’t pull off a whole lot of those.

[Stratocaster]

@MsWhatsit

Mm. So:

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.

I believe I will thank you, actually, for clarifying this entire argument for us. Well done.

That’s one fine straw man! A “well done” right back at you!

[Voyager]

@Stratocaster

Hmm? Why can’t someone have an opinion that there’s really only one proper conclusion to a question posed?

What I am aware of is that you either missed or ignored all my posts. I believed the OP was asking, “Why such coverage and why must it be free? Why no co-pays like for other coverage?” He subsequently confirmed that. So, my answer (to that specific question) is the same: Because it plays to the base and feeds the “war on women” jive. There is no reason why contraceptives need to be covered at no charge, why that it is the only answer to this “very important health benefit.”

On the one hand conservatives scream about the sluts with their abortions and unwanted pregnancies, and on the other scream about free contraception to help reduce this. Maybe there is something to the war on women after all.
The probability of incurring medical expense without contraception is a lot higher than that of having a heart attack without aspirin. It is about the biggest no brainer in the world.

[Antinor01]

@Victor_Charlie

If you look at the list of treatments required with no copay that’s certainly the case.

Yes, birth control has other benefits… as do other medications that usually require copays.

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.

[Airbeck]

@Stratocaster

That’s one fine straw man! A “well done” right back at you!

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?

[Stratocaster]

@Marley23

Maybe I’m treating “IMO” and “IMHO” as equivalent. But you’re acknowledging that there are other opinions and then rejecting their existence at the same time.

You can disagree with my assessment, but sure you noticed the word “right”? That qualifier excludes the inference that I was unaware that other opinions existed.

Anyway that’s separate from the fact that what you wrote is just plain wrong and the other explanations make more sense. Not everything is about baiting Congressional Republicans- although it’s sort of refreshing to see their idiocy described as a political coup by Democrats, who don’t pull off a whole lot of those.

You may be right. But I rarely see a chance at fueling the fire of the “war on women” ignored, and I still see no other reason why contraceptives need to be utterly free. 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.

ETA: IMO, of course.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Victor_Charlie

You just ignored both of my points. Of course insurance plans cover antibiotics. But they charge a copay. Antibiotics are rarely free.

Probably a good thing with many medications so as to prevent abuse.

I specifically acknowledge they’re not preventive, but they fight actual diseases. Pregnancies are expensive, but not as expensive as gangrene.

You really were not making that point very well.

Gangrene is expensive. But I do not need to take antibiotics constantly to prevent getting gangrene.

If reducing costs are the litmus test for whether or not a medication should be free, aren’t most medications cheaper than the afflictions they treat?

Yes. But if your complaint is a $10 copay vs. free I really have a hard time seeing your point.

There are medications that PREVENT catastrophic seizures, but they can be exorbitantly expensive.

Are they covered by most health plans?

It’s a lot easier for someone with epilepsy to avoid getting pregnant without a pill than it is for her to avoid a seizure.

A very, very large percentage of women in the USA can get pregnant. The number of people who have epilepsy is much smaller.

This is starting to sound like ‘aspirin between the knees’ attitude.

[MsWhatsit]

@Stratocaster

That’s one fine straw man! A “well done” right back at you!

I believe I’ve accurately characterized your argument. You’re free to point out where I erred, if you can. I asked you a genuine question up-thread, and you chose to give a snarky non-response. I then summarized what I feel is the meat of your position, and you chose to give another snarky non-response.

My apologies for overstating the obvious, but it’s starting to look like a non-response is the only kind of response you’re capable of.

Edit:

@Stratocaster

You may be right. But I rarely see a chance at fueling the fire of the “war on women” ignored, and I still see no other reason why contraceptives need to be utterly free. 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.

That’s… interesting. Preventive care is proven to reduce overall costs. It is a very smart and wise decision to cover preventive care. If you want to argue that contraceptives aren’t really preventive care, I’d disagree, but I guess I could understand the argument. Thinking that all preventive care is being paid for just to justify contraceptive care? I… that seems a bit off-base. A bit.

[Voyager]

@Victor_Charlie

You just ignored both of my points. Of course insurance plans cover antibiotics. But they charge a copay. Antibiotics are rarely free. I specifically acknowledge they’re not preventive, but they fight actual diseases. Pregnancies are expensive, but not as expensive as gangrene.

Never sent a kid to college, I take it.
You are coming across as pro-abortion - not pro-abortion rights, but pro-abortion. Why else would you advocate a policy which would increase the number of abortions?