Arguing in favor of Contraceptive Coverage

[KevinWestern]

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?

 

[California Girl]

My thought is that is against my religion. You want it, you fucking pay for it. Not overly complicated.

 

[nitroz]

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?

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.

 

[nitroz]

My thought is that is against my religion. You want it, you fucking pay for it. Not overly complicated.

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.)

 

[KevinWestern]

My thought is that is against my religion. You want it, you fucking pay for it. Not overly complicated.

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.

 

[chikenwing]

My thought is that is against my religion. You want it, you fucking pay for it. Not overly complicated.

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.

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.

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

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.

 

[KevinWestern]

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?

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.

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.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

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?

 

[chikenwing]

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.

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?

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??

 

[KevinWestern]

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??

Chikenwing, I suppose I'm trying to look at it less from a political perspective and more from the perspective of the insurance company and the overall cost of the healthcare system.

The insurance company's goal is to dish out the least amount of money for each of its patients as possible. Therefore, it's in the insurance company's best interest to offer BC pills at maybe $500/year (I'm not sure how much it costs), so that if the person they cover is a sexually active female that doesn't want to get pregnant, she can go on the pill and will be at a much smaller risk statistically of getting pregnant. What's the risk otherwise? If she gets pregnant, the insurance company will then have to dish out an additional $10,000-12,000 to cover the associated costs.

So from a business perspective, it makes sense for the insurance company to include contraceptives in their plan, whether or not the government mandates it; that's what I'm arguing.

 

[California Girl]

My thought is that is against my religion. You want it, you fucking pay for it. Not overly complicated.

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.)

Damn, you are an idiot. ALL plans from now on will include birth control... how exactly can I not pay for it? There will be no providers to 'switch to'. That's the whole fucking point of the argument between the Church and Obama. I suggest you get a basic understanding of the topic before discussing it. Otherwise, people might think you are stupid.

 

[California Girl]

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??

Chikenwing, I suppose I'm trying to look at it less from a political perspective and more from the perspective of the insurance company and the overall cost of the healthcare system.

The insurance company's goal is to dish out the least amount of money for each of its patients as possible. Therefore, it's in the insurance company's best interest to offer BC pills at maybe $500/year (I'm not sure how much it costs), so that if the person they cover is a sexually active female that doesn't want to get pregnant, she can go on the pill and will be at a much smaller risk statistically of getting pregnant. What's the risk otherwise? If she gets pregnant, the insurance company will then have to dish out an additional $10,000-12,000 to cover the associated costs.

So from a business perspective, it makes sense for the insurance company to include contraceptives in their plan, whether or not the government mandates it; that's what I'm arguing.

Again... why can I not have a plan that does not include birth control? Why should religious employers be forced to breach their doctrine just because someone else has decided that our beliefs are not important? Where the fuck are our First Amendment Rights... or are you supporting trampling on the Constitution just because YOU disagree with our beliefs?

 

[KevinWestern]

Again... why can I not have a plan that does not include birth control? Why should religious employers be forced to breach their doctrine just because someone else has decided that our beliefs are not important? Where the fuck are our First Amendment Rights... or are you supporting trampling on the Constitution just because YOU disagree with our beliefs?

You can Cali, I never said I supported a gov't mandate. All I'm saying is that not including contraceptives on religious grounds may sound like the smart choice from your God's perspective, but it's not the smart choice from the money saving, rational perspective.

Your option will drive up the overall costs of Heathcare, which I'd personally like to see reduced.

Also, if the pill's on the plan, that doesn't mean you have to use it.

Just tryin to save us all some money here, why do I have to pay for your religious decisions?

 

[California Girl]

Again... why can I not have a plan that does not include birth control? Why should religious employers be forced to breach their doctrine just because someone else has decided that our beliefs are not important? Where the fuck are our First Amendment Rights... or are you supporting trampling on the Constitution just because YOU disagree with our beliefs?

You can Cali, I never said I supported a gov't mandate. All I'm saying is that not including contraceptives on religious grounds may be the smart choice from your God's perspective, but not from the money saving, rational perspective.

Your option will drive up the overall costs of Heathcare, which I'd personally like to see reduced.

Also, if the pill's on the plan, that doesn't mean you have to use it.

I'm really not interested in your 'money saving, rational' perspective. I am interested in the US Constitution, and my religion. I don't care what you do.... abort every child you create... that's fine - as long as I'm not paying for it. Practice whatever birth control you choose. That's all good..... as long as I am NOT paying. It's not my place to pay for your shit any more than it is your place to pay for mine.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

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?

Where do you get $50,000 a year and for how many years? Do you offset this by a child's eventual productivity or do you think they will live at an OWS site until they die? One of the oddest ideas liberals came up with is killing off the next generation, then supporting unlimited immigration because we have killed off the next generation and lack enough people to keep the country running.

 

[KevinWestern]

Again... why can I not have a plan that does not include birth control? Why should religious employers be forced to breach their doctrine just because someone else has decided that our beliefs are not important? Where the fuck are our First Amendment Rights... or are you supporting trampling on the Constitution just because YOU disagree with our beliefs?

You can Cali, I never said I supported a gov't mandate. All I'm saying is that not including contraceptives on religious grounds may be the smart choice from your God's perspective, but not from the money saving, rational perspective.

Your option will drive up the overall costs of Heathcare, which I'd personally like to see reduced.

Also, if the pill's on the plan, that doesn't mean you have to use it.

I'm really not interested in your 'money saving, rational' perspective. I am interested in the US Constitution, and my religion. I don't care what you do.... abort every child you create... that's fine - as long as I'm not paying for it. Practice whatever birth control you choose. That's all good..... as long as I am NOT paying. It's not my place to pay for your shit any more than it is your place to pay for mine.

If you're not interested in saving money, fine. Again, I started this post to discuss the rationale behind including contraceptives from a dollar perspective, not the constitutionality of the mandate.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

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?

Where do you get $50,000 a year and for how many years? Do you offset this by a child's eventual productivity or do you think they will live at an OWS site until they die? One of the oddest ideas liberals came up with is killing off the next generation, then supporting unlimited immigration because we have killed off the next generation and lack enough people to keep the country running.

Katz- you're thinking way too long term and into the realm of nonsense and obscurity. OWS? Killing a generation? I'm talking insurance here, and specifically the pool of women who are sexually active and don't want a child at this time.

The point is, in a given year, an insurance company will have to dish out more money for a pregnant lady vs a lady on the pill. The more money the insurance company has to dish out, the higher the premiums. Why is this so difficult to get across?

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

Where do you get $50,000 a year and for how many years? Do you offset this by a child's eventual productivity or do you think they will live at an OWS site until they die? One of the oddest ideas liberals came up with is killing off the next generation, then supporting unlimited immigration because we have killed off the next generation and lack enough people to keep the country running.

Katz- you're thinking way too long term and into the realm of nonsense and obscurity. OWS? Killing a generation? I'm talking insurance here, and specifically the pool of women who are sexually active and don't want a child at this time.

The point is, in a given year, an insurance company will have to dish out more money for a pregnant lady vs a lady on the pill. The more money the insurance company has to dish out, the higher the premiums. Why is this so difficult to get across?

Because there is a benefit to having a child. We have enjoyed so many abortions in this country that we have little population growth which is one of the main arguments of those who support increased immigration. You are actually supporting population replacement not abortion. Where do you get $50,000 a year? Where? For how many years? Will the child ever be assumed to be a productive citizen and pay insurance premiums or will the pool of insured just get smaller and smaller by attrition? Or, just have the immigrants start paying their own premiums. Now if you imagine that prenatal care and chikld birth costs $50,000, what you are saying is that the same child would have to be born every year in perpetuity.

What's difficult to get across, is that you see no benefit whatsoever in assuring the health of the next generation. From a merely dollar and cent perspective. Every child born has to to be a total drain on the nation and utterly useless. Like those who populate the OWS sites.

No one is suggesting that men and women be denied sufficient amounts of recreational sex. It should be considered like any other recreational activity and paid for by the individuals. We don't have insurance policies that pay for ski equipment, or buy new surfboards. Of ALL the specious arguments, the one that says women are basically too lazy to trot down and get free contraceptives is the worst. If someone does not want to take advantage of an opportunity, it is not up to someone else to pay them to be that lazy. That's your argument, that woman are too lazy to take care of their own reproductive needs! Seriously! Maybe they are too lazy to get off their ass and get the pill out of the cabinet, or drawer. Maybe men are just too lazy to slap on a condom. We have reached heights of lazyness unimaginable. If they have enough energy to fuck, they have enough energy to go to a clinic, with a little motivation they can rouse themselves enough to do it.

 

[KevinWestern]

Because there is a benefit to having a child. We have enjoyed so many abortions in this country that we have little population growth which is one of the main arguments of those who support increased immigration. You are actually supporting population replacement not abortion. Where do you get $50,000 a year? Where? For how many years? Will the child ever be assumed to be a productive citizen and pay insurance premiums or will the pool of insured just get smaller and smaller by attrition? Or, just have the immigrants start paying their own premiums. Now if you imagine that prenatal care and chikld birth costs $50,000, what you are saying is that the same child would have to be born every year in perpetuity.

What's difficult to get across, is that you see no benefit whatsoever in assuring the health of the next generation. From a merely dollar and cent perspective. Every child born has to to be a total drain on the nation and utterly useless. Like those who populate the OWS sites.

No one is suggesting that men and women be denied sufficient amounts of recreational sex. It should be considered like any other recreational activity and paid for by the individuals. We don't have insurance policies that pay for ski equipment, or buy new surfboards. Of ALL the specious arguments, the one that says women are basically too lazy to trot down and get free contraceptives is the worst. If someone does not want to take advantage of an opportunity, it is not up to someone else to pay them to be that lazy. That's your argument, that woman are too lazy to take care of their own reproductive needs! Seriously! Maybe they are too lazy to get off their ass and get the pill out of the cabinet, or drawer. Maybe men are just too lazy to slap on a condom. We have reached heights of lazyness unimaginable. If they have enough energy to fuck, they have enough energy to go to a clinic, with a little motivation they can rouse themselves enough to do it.

I don't think you're understanding me, Katz!

My argument IS NOT children are too expensive to bring into the world, and that I don’t see all of the wonderful things population growth would mean for our country. I’m in 100% support of women, when they WANT to have kids, to do it. And I’m 100% in support of the insurance covering those procedures.

But what you don’t get, is I’m talking about the pool of women – specifically – who are sexually active, and DO NOT want a child. They are willing to take the risk of having sex, anyways, and as a result it puts the insurance company at risk TOO, because they will have to cover all of the medical procedures related to the pregnancy if they are to become pregnant.

To protect against this risk, I argue that the insurance company offer the BC pill option so that women who fall into this specific pool – sexually active, and DO NOT want children – can use it to curb the risk of pregnancy.

So out of a pool of 10 women who fall into this category, 0 get pregnant, whereas (for the company that offers no BC coverage) 4 of the women get pregnant.

It’s a cost benefit analysis.

The insurance company is not thinking about the long term benefits of population growth, it’s thinking about saving money TODAY.