Arguing in favor of Contraceptive Coverage

[Katzndogz]

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.

Ohhhh, then all insurance companies have to do is issue a press release that says if they don't have to cover contraceptives, they can reduce ALL premiums by $3.00 a month and the argument is OVER. Following your line of reasoning, insurance companies should cover ski safety equipment because it lessens the risk of serious injury for those who choose to ski.

Here is your reality. A birth control pill that costs $9.00 at Walmart could cost $400.00 if covered by insurance. When you go to the hospital and get an aspirin your bill might reflect $120.00 for two aspirins. Why is this? Gouging? No. Most of the cost of insurance claims is in the paperwork necessary to process those claims. There are as many forms and personnel to process those forms necessary for a birth control pill or a childbirth.

Since we are talking about what is primarily a recreational activity, it makes sense to have the person engaging in that activity to pay for their own receational expenses.

 

[BluePhantom]

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.

Kevin, I am not sure what your goals with this thread are. I don't think anyone is going to argue that contraception is more expensive than pregnancy. There's no question that from strictly financial perspective it's best for insurance to cover contraception. So if your point is to discuss that, I am not sure where you expect to go. Point ceded, end of discussion.

However, the real point is that some people put their faith as a higher priority. It's more important for them to observe their faith than save money. For my part, it's more important to me that the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution are maintained. So yes, on the surface, it's a good financial move, but some people (myself included) find the cost in terms of reduced freedoms is too great.

 

[Gagafritz]

Actually, the cheapest medical intervention would be application of a toe tag. Problem solved. Nothing left to pay for.

 

[Katzndogz]

I have no religious prohibitions at all. I object to covering recreational expenses for someone else.

 

[Gagafritz]

We cover all kinds of things. Why should i be paying to subsidize someone's cholesterol meds or heartburn pills or any of that? Most plans have some type of prescription coverage. We could go more with a catastrophic type plan, cover everything or something in between. I don't really know what the answer is. If you are paying for insurance and they cover birth control, that is great. But, on the other hand, if you accept a job at a Catholic facility, they can certainly tell you up front what will and will not be covered. The govt should not be strong arming people to violate their religious convictions.

 

[KevinWestern]

Kevin, I am not sure what your goals with this thread are. I don't think anyone is going to argue that contraception is more expensive than pregnancy. There's no question that from strictly financial perspective it's best for insurance to cover contraception. So if your point is to discuss that, I am not sure where you expect to go. Point ceded, end of discussion.

However, the real point is that some people put their faith as a higher priority. It's more important for them to observe their faith than save money. For my part, it's more important to me that the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution are maintained. So yes, on the surface, it's a good financial move, but some people (myself included) find the cost in terms of reduced freedoms is too great.

Blue - I think you framed it perfectly, and I agree with just about everything you said. I completely understand and sympathize with someone when they say, “I don’t think it’s right for the government to force an insurance company to do something" - especially when it's in direct violation of their religious beliefs.

But with that said, I don’t think people understand that strictly from a financial perspective it’s best for insurance to cover contraception. I think people jump to the conclusion that their insurance is going to go up, because their insurance must now cover an additional procedure, but do not take into account or acknowledge the fact that there’s a positive side effect here (from a financial perspective) that unwanted pregnancy rates will go down, thus driving premiums down as a result.

I think that’s the point of my thread, to demonstrate that point.

 

[BluePhantom]

Blue - I think you framed it perfectly, and I agree with just about everything you said. I completely understand and sympathize with someone when they say, “I don’t think it’s right for the government to force an insurance company to do something" - especially when it's in direct violation of their religious beliefs.

But with that said, I don’t think people understand that strictly from a financial perspective it’s best for insurance to cover contraception. I think people jump to the conclusion that their insurance is going to go up, because their insurance must now cover an additional procedure, but do not take into account or aknowledge the fact that there’s a positive side effect here (from a financial perspective) that unwanted pregnancy rates will go down, thus driving premiums down as a result.

I think that’s the point of my thread, I think.

Oh....well.....yeah, your point then is absolutely correct. I do think most people understand about the economics of it though. Some people might not, of course, but I think the vast majority understand it perfectly. For me it comes down to the questions: "at what price are we willing to sell our freedoms?" and "once we open that door, what freedom will we sell next?"

 

[Immanuel]

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?

I think, as both CG and BP have stated, that the issue comes down to a moral decision rather than an economical decision. Not everyone worships the almighty dollar. Some put values, including the value of human life, over that of the dollar.

As an employer, I would not be involved in this issue as I believe the choice of whether or not to use contraceptives belongs to the woman and possibly her partner as well. The employer has no rights in this decision as far as I am concerned... and for the record, I am a person of faith. I would not seek out a policy that did not offer contraceptive coverage.

On the other hand, I respect the right of the employer not to purchase the benefit for its employees. The employer has the right to say "we will only provide health benefits that do not offer contraception coverage. If you want said coverage, you must go out and purchase it yourself."

Immie

 

[BluePhantom]

On the other hand, I respect the right of the employer not to purchase the benefit for its employees. The employer has the right to say "we will only provide health benefits that do not offer contraception coverage. If you want said coverage, you must go out and purchase it yourself."

Immie

I agree 100% and I am a big believer in the aggressive use of contraception...and I am far from a Catholic. But I look at the situation and say to myself: "I may disagree with the Catholic position on contraception, but it's their Constitutional right that is at stake and next time it may be mine."

 

[Katzndogz]

Company benefits are just that, benefits. Some companies offer pet insurance. Should it be mandatory that all companies offer pet insurance. How about pet insurance for therapy dogs? A company might offer a bonus in the form of vacation insurance. Should that be mandatory also?

This is insurance coverage for what is basically a recreational activity. It should not be covered except by a supplemental policy, or provide your own. I would point out though, that supplemental coverage would cost more than just buying it or getting it free from a clinic.

 

[Immanuel]

Company benefits are just that, benefits. Some companies offer pet insurance. Should it be mandatory that all companies offer pet insurance. How about pet insurance for therapy dogs? A company might offer a bonus in the form of vacation insurance. Should that be mandatory also?

This is insurance coverage for what is basically a recreational activity. It should not be covered except by a supplemental policy, or provide your own. I would point out though, that supplemental coverage would cost more than just buying it or getting it free from a clinic.

I would agree with you except for the "exception" part of your statement.

An employer should be allowed to offer said benefits if it so desires. It should not be forced to do so.

Immie

 

[KevinWestern]

Company benefits are just that, benefits. Some companies offer pet insurance. Should it be mandatory that all companies offer pet insurance. How about pet insurance for therapy dogs? A company might offer a bonus in the form of vacation insurance. Should that be mandatory also?

This is insurance coverage for what is basically a recreational activity. It should not be covered except by a supplemental policy, or provide your own. I would point out though, that supplemental coverage would cost more than just buying it or getting it free from a clinic.

Katz, the point is that if an insurance company does not offer pet insurance, there is no negative financial side effect that the insurance company will have to pay for as a result.

However, there IS a negative financial side effect for not offering contraceptives, one that will impact the books of the insurance company – the woman's potential pregnancy. The insurance company will have to cover the cost of the pregnancy.

That’s why I say it is a cost benefit analysis. Is it worthwhile for the insurance company to include Pet therapy coverage @ $500/per pet? Absolutely not, because it’s not protecting the insurance company from any risk.

But is it worthwhile for the insurance company to include birth control @ $500/per female who elects to take it. Absolutely, because it protects the insurance company from the risk of having to pay for her pregnancy, which may cost in the upwards of $15,000+ in total.

Do you understand where I’m getting at?

 

[Katzndogz]

Company benefits are just that, benefits. Some companies offer pet insurance. Should it be mandatory that all companies offer pet insurance. How about pet insurance for therapy dogs? A company might offer a bonus in the form of vacation insurance. Should that be mandatory also?

This is insurance coverage for what is basically a recreational activity. It should not be covered except by a supplemental policy, or provide your own. I would point out though, that supplemental coverage would cost more than just buying it or getting it free from a clinic.

Katz, the point is that if an insurance company does not offer pet insurance, there is no negative financial side effect that the insurance company will have to pay for as a result.

However, there IS a negative financial side effect for not offering contraceptives, one that will impact the books of the insurance company – the woman's potential pregnancy. The insurance company will have to cover the cost of the pregnancy.

That’s why I say it is a cost benefit analysis. Is it worthwhile for the insurance company to include Pet therapy coverage @ $500/per pet? Absolutely not, because it’s not protecting the insurance company from any risk.

But is it worthwhile for the insurance company to include birth control @ $500/per female who elects to take it. Absolutely, because it protects the insurance company from the risk of having to pay for her pregnancy, which may cost in the upwards of $15,000+ in total.

Do you understand where I’m getting at?

You are the one who does not understand. For every dollar spent on coverage, it requires over $50.00 in processing. That's why aspirin isn't covered, or cough syrup. The processing costs, every month, for insurance coverage is way WAY more than the processing costs for childbirth. The processing costs for a woman to get her BC from a clinic is 0. All the way around. If someone doesn't want to be inconvenienced by having to go to a clinc, or spend very few dollars to get BC from the drug store, including condoms, why should insurance companies, and other premium payers be responsible for alleviating that inconvenience just for a recreational activity. Women will STILL have to go to the pharmacy, they are still inconvenienced.

If you are looking for a cost benefit analysis it's denying coverage for BC that's the most cost effective. The company providing the coverage doesn't have to pay someone to fill out forms, the insurance company doesn't have to pay someone to process the forms. Nor do they have to provide benefits to these employees and give THEM insurance either.

What you suppose is that if insurance companies decline BC coverage, no woman, or man, will elect to use any form of self-provided birth control and all women will get pregnant every nine months. As BC PILLS have been around for 50 years, with women being responsible for their own needs with our without the help of a partner all that time, this current controversy is manufactured for a political purpose. It has nothing to do with women's health. In fact, if you get right down to it, BC PILLS themselves contribute to health risks for women because they come with a warning that they don't prevent STDs.

 

[Care4all]

Company benefits are just that, benefits. Some companies offer pet insurance. Should it be mandatory that all companies offer pet insurance. How about pet insurance for therapy dogs? A company might offer a bonus in the form of vacation insurance. Should that be mandatory also?

This is insurance coverage for what is basically a recreational activity. It should not be covered except by a supplemental policy, or provide your own. I would point out though, that supplemental coverage would cost more than just buying it or getting it free from a clinic.

Katz, the point is that if an insurance company does not offer pet insurance, there is no negative financial side effect that the insurance company will have to pay for as a result.

However, there IS a negative financial side effect for not offering contraceptives, one that will impact the books of the insurance company – the woman's potential pregnancy. The insurance company will have to cover the cost of the pregnancy.

That’s why I say it is a cost benefit analysis. Is it worthwhile for the insurance company to include Pet therapy coverage @ $500/per pet? Absolutely not, because it’s not protecting the insurance company from any risk.

But is it worthwhile for the insurance company to include birth control @ $500/per female who elects to take it. Absolutely, because it protects the insurance company from the risk of having to pay for her pregnancy, which may cost in the upwards of $15,000+ in total.

Do you understand where I’m getting at?

You are the one who does not understand. For every dollar spent on coverage, it requires over $50.00 in processing. That's why aspirin isn't covered, or cough syrup. The processing costs, every month, for insurance coverage is way WAY more than the processing costs for childbirth. The processing costs for a woman to get her BC from a clinic is 0. All the way around. If someone doesn't want to be inconvenienced by having to go to a clinc, or spend very few dollars to get BC from the drug store, including condoms, why should insurance companies, and other premium payers be responsible for alleviating that inconvenience just for a recreational activity. Women will STILL have to go to the pharmacy, they are still inconvenienced.

If you are looking for a cost benefit analysis it's denying coverage for BC that's the most cost effective. The company providing the coverage doesn't have to pay someone to fill out forms, the insurance company doesn't have to pay someone to process the forms. Nor do they have to provide benefits to these employees and give THEM insurance either.

What you suppose is that if insurance companies decline BC coverage, no woman, or man, will elect to use any form of self-provided birth control and all women will get pregnant every nine months. As BC PILLS have been around for 50 years, with women being responsible for their own needs with our without the help of a partner all that time, this current controversy is manufactured for a political purpose. It has nothing to do with women's health. In fact, if you get right down to it, BC PILLS themselves contribute to health risks for women because they come with a warning that they don't prevent STDs.

katz and dogs, PLEASE for the love of God, you need to inform yourself on this topic.....aspirins and the such are not covered BECAUSE they are over the counter drugs. Apregnancy is much much more expensive for the Health Insurance companies than Birth Control Pills and you are just spouting a bunch of bunk on that....and you didn't even bother to research it.....sheesh.

when I was young, birth control was NOT offered on Insurance plans but this was decades ago.... but now, all full coverage plans cover it, unless asked not to....and the reason the Insurance companies CHOSE to add this to their coverage is because THEY figured out that it cost them LESS to offer it than it did if they did not offer it....got that?

and as far as Planned Parenthood offering the Pills for free, this is simply not true....they off the pills for free for the very poorest among us, but for others it is on a sliding scale of family income.

Also, in addition to this, the GOP has a war going on against Plan parenthood and are trying to get gvt funds CUT from them....so if they accomplish this, there will be even less tax payers money going towards this type of clinic, thus prices may go up and also people who once got them free will no longer get them for free.

thirdly, why in the world would you want the tax payer to pay for even MORE people's birth Control or more of a portion of it verses the person paying for it themselves via their OWN health insurance plan.

and fourthly, people like Sandra Fluke, at Georgetown, PAY FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS EACH AND EVERY YEAR.....

THEY, THE STUDENTS, ARE CHARGED FOR THIS COVERAGE.

Accepting the 2011-2012 Premier Plan

Dear Student:
The Premier Plan offered by Georgetown University is underwritten by the United HealthCare Insurance Company (United). Because you are responsible for understanding your health benefits, carefully read the enrollment and benefit details, including the Exclusions and Limitations, in the Premier Plan Description of Benefits, Policy #2011-32-1, before making an enrollment decision.
Eligible students are mandated coverage only once per academic year. The Premium Rate including administrative fees, Terms of Coverage dates, and corresponding Open Enrollment Dates are below.
Fall 2011-2012 Plan Year:

Term of Coverage: 8/15/2011 - 8/14/2012
Open Enrollment: 2nd week in July - September 15, 2011

• $1,895 per student
• $5,516 per student and spouse
• $5,516 per student and child(ren)
• $8,680 per student and family

http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/letteraccept.html

And lastly, the Catholic Church is NOT being asked to pay for birth control coverage for their employees...

one because it is NOT the Catholic Church that runs the Universities like Georgetown, it is the Catholic Charities....Secular people run the University, not a Priest....or Monk or Nun....it is a non profit Business and has a board of directors filled with Secular people and even the Dean is not with the Church or a Priest.

and 2, because the University is making the Students pay for their Health care and bills them for it once a year with their tuition.

And 3rdly, the Catholic Charties gets 50% of their funds from us, THE TAX PAYER.....AT LEAST LAST YEAR, so even if they claim to be paying a portion of the cost, they are NOT doing such....because they have no money....the only money they have to run the university comes from the tuition the secular students pay in tuition, the government, and some very small donors including alumni.

So please, stop these lies of yours that you are spreading around, God frowns upon people who lie and bear false witness....

Care

 

[California Girl]

Kevin, I am not sure what your goals with this thread are. I don't think anyone is going to argue that contraception is more expensive than pregnancy. There's no question that from strictly financial perspective it's best for insurance to cover contraception. So if your point is to discuss that, I am not sure where you expect to go. Point ceded, end of discussion.

However, the real point is that some people put their faith as a higher priority. It's more important for them to observe their faith than save money. For my part, it's more important to me that the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution are maintained. So yes, on the surface, it's a good financial move, but some people (myself included) find the cost in terms of reduced freedoms is too great.

Blue - I think you framed it perfectly, and I agree with just about everything you said. I completely understand and sympathize with someone when they say, “I don’t think it’s right for the government to force an insurance company to do something" - especially when it's in direct violation of their religious beliefs.

But with that said, I don’t think people understand that strictly from a financial perspective it’s best for insurance to cover contraception. I think people jump to the conclusion that their insurance is going to go up, because their insurance must now cover an additional procedure, but do not take into account or acknowledge the fact that there’s a positive side effect here (from a financial perspective) that unwanted pregnancy rates will go down, thus driving premiums down as a result.

I think that’s the point of my thread, to demonstrate that point.

You are free to worship the Almighty Dollar. I am free to worship the Almighty God. The problem is that this government is supporting your right, but not mine. I cannot buy a healthcare plan that doesn't include birth control. Defend my rights, as I would do for you.

More importantly, religious employers cannot provide cover that does not break their doctrine. THAT is against the First Amendment - the free exercise of our religion.

 

[KevinWestern]

Kevin, I am not sure what your goals with this thread are. I don't think anyone is going to argue that contraception is more expensive than pregnancy. There's no question that from strictly financial perspective it's best for insurance to cover contraception. So if your point is to discuss that, I am not sure where you expect to go. Point ceded, end of discussion.

However, the real point is that some people put their faith as a higher priority. It's more important for them to observe their faith than save money. For my part, it's more important to me that the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution are maintained. So yes, on the surface, it's a good financial move, but some people (myself included) find the cost in terms of reduced freedoms is too great.

Blue - I think you framed it perfectly, and I agree with just about everything you said. I completely understand and sympathize with someone when they say, “I don’t think it’s right for the government to force an insurance company to do something" - especially when it's in direct violation of their religious beliefs.

But with that said, I don’t think people understand that strictly from a financial perspective it’s best for insurance to cover contraception. I think people jump to the conclusion that their insurance is going to go up, because their insurance must now cover an additional procedure, but do not take into account or acknowledge the fact that there’s a positive side effect here (from a financial perspective) that unwanted pregnancy rates will go down, thus driving premiums down as a result.

I think that’s the point of my thread, to demonstrate that point.

You are free to worship the Almighty Dollar. I am free to worship the Almighty God. The problem is that this government is supporting your right, but not mine. I cannot buy a healthcare plan that doesn't include birth control. Defend my rights, as I would do for you.

More importantly, religious employers cannot provide cover that does not break their doctrine. THAT is against the First Amendment - the free exercise of our religion.

I understand your argument, but two quick questions (just to play devil's advocate):

1.) I heard that churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the mandate. So isn’t the government still respecting their right to religious choice?

and (this is the more important one)...

2.) Even if your insurance company has contraception on the table, are you being forced to use it? If not, then why does it matter?

You're going to find that most all insurance companies carry contraception (maybe all of the major ones?), and that each insurance group is utilized by a wide variety of companies who develop plans with them. Also, I hear that this law, by the way, doesn't force the insurance company to do anything (if I understand correctly), it simply just bans the employer from manually telling the insurance company that it can't give its employees contraception coverage.

So I ask:

If a company bans its employees from using the contraception option (despite the fact that the insurance company carries already, and the premiums that the employees are paying "still go into" the pool of money that the insurance company uses to buy contraception for folks within other companies), how's that different than just the employee electing not to take the contraception in the first place?

 

[midcan5]

If one wanted to be consistent in this argument, men should be not able to get Viagra on health insurance either as that serves no purpose except to wake up his biggest little friend so he can feel young again, or maybe just feel like a man again. For those of us men who remain forever young, why should we pay for a bunch of impotent men, most of whom are probably.....

Contraceptives for women do lots of good, viagra for men just wastes energy in old farts whose days of glory have passed. Sorry Charlie.

"A sizeable literature corroborates the multiple health benefits of oral contraceptive use. The first estrogen/progestin combination pills were marketed to treat a variety of menstrual disorders. Although currently used oral contraceptives no longer carry FDA-approved labeling for these indications, they remain important therapeutic options for a variety of gynecologic conditions. Well-established gynecologic benefits include a reduction in dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia, iron-deficiency anemia, ectopic pregnancy, and PID. Although older, higher-dose pills reduced the incidence of ovarian cysts, low-dose pills suppress follicular activity less consistently. Nevertheless, cycle-related symptoms, including functional cysts, dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, and ovulation pain (mittelschmerz), generally improve. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome note improvement in bleeding patterns and a reduction in acne and hirsutism. Symptoms from endometriosis also improve with oral contraceptive therapy. Current data suggest that oral contraceptive therapy increases bone density and that past use decreases fracture risk. Oral contraceptives also improve acne, a major health concern of young women. Oral contraceptives provide lasting reduction in the risk of two serious gynecologic malignancies--ovarian and endometrial cancer. The data with respect to ovarian cancer are compelling enough to recommend the use of oral contraceptives to women at high risk by virtue of family history, positive carrier status of the BRCA mutations, or nulliparity, even if contraception is not required. Health care providers must counsel women regarding these benefits to counteract deeply held public attitudes and misconceptions regarding oral contraceptive use. Messages should focus on topics of interest to particular groups of women. The fact that oral contraceptives increase bone mineral density and reduce ovarian cancer is of great interest to women in their forties and helps influence use and compliance in this group. In contrast, the beneficial effects of oral contraceptives on acne resonates with younger women. Getting the good news out about the benefits of oral contraceptives will enable more women to take advantage of their positive health effects." Health benefits of oral contrac... [Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI

Weighing the Health Benefits of Birth Control - NYTimes.com

"Hormonal contraceptive methods use manufactured estrogen and progestin in different combinations and deliver them in a variety of ways — through pills, shots, skin patches, implants, IUDs and vaginal rings. Studies have shown that all those methods reduce the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. Some may also help protect against osteoporosis."

 

[Katzndogz]

It is the immediate inclination to dismiss anything that comes from the NY Times as pure political hackery?

 

[BluePhantom]

It is the immediate inclination to dismiss anything that comes from the NY Times as pure political hackery?

i don't often agree with you Katz but in this case....yeah.

 

[frazzledgear]

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?

Come on -your argument is built entirely on a false premise. Shifting responsibility for paying for birth control pills from those who want them to those who don't has zero impact on pregnancy rates. It is like saying taxpayers should give all adults a "free" car -because don't they realize buying a car is still cheaper than the hospital bills when a pedestrian get hits by a car. Aside from the possible loss of life and the people dependent on that person's income, just think of all the different types of serious and very expensive complications that can arise from getting hit by a car -why the cost can end up requiring lifetime care and the risk of permanent brain injury is very, very real! Getting hit by a car has devastated entire families -and I can show you the stats on the emotional and financial toll it causes people! OMG! What kind of heartless people would we be unless we did everything we could to prevent this kind of thing and only mean spirited assholes would be opposed to that!

Just one problem though. Not owning a car does not increase your odds of getting hit by one -AT ALL. Employed women with health insurance buying their own birth control pills doesn't make them more likely to get pregnant than if someone else buys them for her -AT ALL. That must mean employed women with health care are also at greater risk of getting cavities if they have to buy our own toothpaste than if others bought it for them instead, right? Do you buy into that one too? If so, then it also stands to reason that employed women with health insurance need someone to wipe their ass because we all know they are less likely to practice good hygiene unless others take responsibility for that too!

Find the study that backs up your POS claim that employed women with health insurance are more likely to get pregnant unless someone else is buying those $9 a month birth control pills -and good luck finding it. It's probably right next to the study showing the dreadful risk of dental caries employed women with health care insurance are burdened with if they having to actually buy their own toothpaste. ROFL

But you did your part to keep this phony, contrived issue alive. Obama probably wishes you would drop it because the more it is discussed, the more he drops in approval rating -among women themselves who didn't take very long before realizing this was a total set up and they were played as really stupid, dumb ass bitches who would think forcing others to buy their birth control pills (of all things -sheesh), would make them forget all about the very real, very serious and even dangerous issues this nation faces. You want to pretend the election is going to hinge on women being greedy ass, irresponsible bitches who think society owes them carefree fucking convinced life as they know it is over unless those who don't want birth control pills are forced to buy them and fork them over to women so that women get both the pills AND their money and everyone else gets neither -go right ahead.