Arguing in favor of Contraceptive Coverage

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by KevinWestern, Mar 15, 2012.

  1. KevinWestern
    Offline

    KevinWestern Hello

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,145
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +535
    I hear often, "why should I have to pay for you to have sex"?

    But do those people realize that a pregnant woman in that insurance pool is much more expensive than a non-pregnant woman on the pill?

    Personally it makes much more sense to pay a little extra in premium so the pill is on the table for women who want it, vs pay a whole lot more in premium when all those women start getting pregnant and require insurance to cover the slew of procedures associated with having a baby (which I assure you costs more than birth control).

    Fact is - you're going to pay for the sexual escapades of people in your insurance pool whether you like it or not. Why not opt for the cheaper approach?

    Thoughts?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    My thought is that is against my religion. You want it, you fucking pay for it. Not overly complicated.
     
  3. nitroz
    Offline

    nitroz INDEPENDENTly ruthless

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,421
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Merritt Island, FL
    Ratings:
    +457
    Contraception is not just used for sexual activity. The use of it for other reasons is ACTUALLY more than the use for sexual activities alone.

    Thats what people don't understand and refuse to consider. They just jump to conclusions.
     
  4. nitroz
    Offline

    nitroz INDEPENDENTly ruthless

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,421
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Merritt Island, FL
    Ratings:
    +457
    Then DON'T pay for it or switch providers!

    Find something to bitch about, please. ("Religious Right" is not an excuse because you have full control on where your money goes. If you don't like how taxes are being spent, then move to another country.)
     
  5. KevinWestern
    Offline

    KevinWestern Hello

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,145
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +535
    I get that, but I'm just posing the question from the non-religious, rational money sense point of view (should have specified).

    I'm not in 100% support of a government mandate, but I'm trying to figure out why people wouldn't just support a contraception option in the first place to ensure cheaper premiums overall.
     
  6. chikenwing
    Offline

    chikenwing Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    7,389
    Thanks Received:
    830
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,960
    How would it drive down premiums? Contraception is cheap and can be had on almost every street corner.

    Telling a business they must provide a coverage will raise prices not lower them.Most insures will cover the pill if needed for medical conditions ,for birth control,its up to you.That reasonable and a logical approach.
     
  7. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    The cheapest method of all is to simply execute everyone who is sick. Abort all children, and simply pay insurance premiums so your doctor can give you an aspirin.

    We do not provide insurance coverage for unnecessary elective procedures. We don't pay for boob jobs, or nose jobs, or lipo. We do not financially support someone's social life. We don't have party insurance to make sure there is enough beer in the keg. We are not talking about family health, we are essentially talking about recreational sex. Which is like recreational tennis lessons. Something else we don't pay for. An employer who makes tennis equipment might well pay for tennis lessons for employees, but there's no mandate that they do so. Companies can choose to pay for tennis lessons, or the expenses of recreational sex, or choose not to.

    There are companies who take an active and personal interest in their employees social lives. They have on-site gyms (very healthy) they monitor for drug use including alcohol and nicotine. The newest company program is to hire and fire based on BMI giving employees a proper period of punishment if the BMI isn't low enough. Some companies have regular parties, very good as a company mixer. There are no laws that force companies to have regular parties, or an on site gym or a company paid yoga teacher. These are recreations and not properly part of employer obligations.

    The very minute that sex was removed from a necessary act of procreation and labeled recreational sex it was removed from corporate interest. A woman that goes to her doctor for her exam should absolutely expect that these are covered expenses. To expand that to cover her fun times is frankly nonsense. Especially since birth control expenses runs from the free at a clinic, to the cheap at the drug store.

    If a woman does have a child. It is up to her and the child's father to provide for that child. If she doesn't know who the father is and can't support her child, take it away from her and give it to someone that can raise it.
     
  8. KevinWestern
    Offline

    KevinWestern Hello

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,145
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +535
    This is not a political debate, it's a cost-benefit analysis. Give women the pill, they won't get pregnant, and insurance won't have to cover expensive pregnancy procedures.

    If a woman doesn't get a nose or boob job, there's no costly side effect as a result.
     
  9. KevinWestern
    Offline

    KevinWestern Hello

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,145
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +535
    Chickenwing- If the insurance covers, I'd say the woman is much more likelier to be on the pill than if it does not cover. If a woman is on the pill, there's a 99.3% chance she won't get pregnant (vs maybe something much less if she's sexually active and off the pill).

    It may be the case that contraception is cheap, and can be found at Planned Parenthood, ect, but people are lazy and don't always take advantage of their opportunities.

    I don't think premiums will rise as a result of mandating contraceptive insurance, mainly because if more people are on the pill there will be less costly pregnancies. Would you rather your insurance dish out $1,000/yr to the woman to protect against pregnancy, or $50,000/yr if she gets pregnant?
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2012
  10. chikenwing
    Offline

    chikenwing Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    7,389
    Thanks Received:
    830
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,960

    It may be the case that contraception is cheap, and can be found at Planned Parenthood, ect, but people are lazy and don't always take advantage of their opportunities.

    So other should take up their slack? what make you think if its cover they won't be just as lazy?

    If its needed for a medical condition,yes if the women doesn't have a condition that would need a contraception to treat it,no Its called responsibility,if we legislate away more personnel responsibilities from people where will we wind up??
     

Share This Page