Fair enough, but this rationale requires us to think of pregnancy as a health problem. Can’t we acknowledge there’s a fundamental difference between everything you just listed (which I agree should be covered at no cost) and a situation that is both expensive and possibly unwanted but just not the same as heart disease? How many things can we list that would be financially beneficial to prevent but maybe not the role of government?
Various governments mandate thousands of aspects of healthcare and insurance coverage. Picking out ones that they shouldn’t have legislation about is going to be a tricky task. What besides contraception would you put on that list?
Removing contraception from the list seems arbitrary. If we’ve decided that preventive medical care is worth paying for, then the only reason to take contraception out of the list is if you think it’s either not preventive, or not medical care. I believe that it is preventive, as that is sort of the definition of what it does. As for whether it is medical care, if a medical doctor treats you for it, then I think it can be considered medical care. Pregnancy is certainly that. (Yes, you CAN have a successful pregnancy without seeing a doctor, but you can also survive bubonic plague without seeing a doctor, so this is not a good rubric.)
Should dental plans pay for toothpaste and dental floss?
Remember, we’re talking about insurance. You buy insurance so that large, unexpected bills don’t bankrupt you. If it’s something almost every couple needs almost every day, and most people can readily afford it, then why don’t they just buy it them themselves?
Now, if insurance companies really do figure out that it’s worth their while to provide it as part their “preventive care” package, then great. But the government shouldn’t be telling them how to package their products unless there is a compelling reason to do so. What is that compelling reason? Adding the layer of “employers” to the equation, and you’re just begging for the kind of endless litigation that we’re seeing now.
Are most people really unable to get the birth control they need without Uncle Sam’s help? If they are, then Uncle Sam should focus his effort on getting the stuff to the minority of people who can’t get it. What is MedicAid for, afterall?
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/
How much does “food” cost per year? What is your point? It costs money to live a normal life as an adult in the US. How are any of those expenses a great burden on most people? Everyone knows he or she needs to get for this stuff.
I was responding to a poster who said:
Leaving toothpaste off the list seems arbitrary.
Employers are not being forced to provide birth control. This is about insurance coverage. You are normally detail-oriented enough to get this, and that’s a basic error.
Yup. And as soon as you can get that through Congress…
As noted upthread, it’s over the counter. Apparently OTC condoms are considered out of pocket expenses as well. Cite. Though admittedly there’s some ambiguity on that point: I suspect condoms are permitted to be provided: it’s just that the government doesn’t require employers to provide them, if I’m reading the link correctly.
Comparing dental floss to a $1200/yr expense is deranged.
MfM:
You are conveniently using the high end of your own estimates. And now you deliberately are ignoring the fact that I was addressing “preventive” care, to a post that made no reference to OTC. But so what if it’s not OTC. Cover the doctor’s visit, but not the product.
So, please simply tell us what problem is being solved by this policy and explain why there isn’t a simpler way to solve the problem. You can’t just say: BUT IT COSTS MONEY!!! and then expect everyone to agree that we need to make employers pay for it for everyone. Hence my comparison to food.
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.
Toothpaste and Listerine is not covered. The super duper prescription mouthwash I use to prevent gum problems is. (with co-pay, but covered.)
People on Medicaid (assuming their state supports it) don’t have to worry about employer coverage, do they?
It wouldn’t surprise me that Republican governors oppose Medicaid paying for contraception, but I haven’t heard of any instances of this.
:dubious: That would be insurance fraud and can have very unpleasant consequences for the doctor if they get caught.
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.
Why anyone other than religious zealots give a shit is beyond me.
Birth control prevents pregnancy - the pill seems pretty good at it.
If a woman gets pregnant - solely because she couldn’t afford birth control - then that child is likely to have a rough time. The child is innocent.
It saves money cause you don’t have to pay for child card visits or pregnancy.
Anything else is just poppycock “oh they are getting something for free”
You have to make choices - this was one of them - they have libertarian compounds people can join if they disagree.
None of those listed items says “Hence, employers should pay for contraception for all women who work for them”.
The USA is the only civilized country where all medical stuff is not free. Think about it. Here in the Dominican Republic I went into the hospital as an American and had a chest exray and an EKG and blood work and no charge!!
But the government doesn’t require your employer to provide you with a plan that covers it.
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.
You know, if people want to make an argument for true UHC, administered by the government, I think that’s an argument that can be made. (Just don’t say it’s free, though, unless you put it in quote, because it isn’t free.) Treat medical care like a public utility, and take it out of the private sector.
But saying “X costs money, and so employers must pay for X” just doesn’t make logical sense.
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.
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.
My answer is reflects my ultra-liberal perspective. I know conservatives like to spend money hand over fist on $2 trillion pointless wars, but some of us care about defending the taxpayer. And preventing unwanted pregnancy affects the balance sheets not just of the private insurance company, 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. Forget the red tape and compliance costs. Just call it preventative medical care if we’re discussing $35 co-pays anyway. Going beyond that, if the cost/benefit favors contraception and the patient wants the service, I’m all for it.
Great minds! 