Arguing in favor of Contraceptive Coverage

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. :lol:

"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."

The old Viagra argument is FALSE. The point of medical treatment is to return the individual to as near normal as possible. Whether you believe it or not, failing body systems are NOT normal and just because it happens to involve someone's sexual function doesn't suddenly make it ok to deny medical treatment. Men become unable to have or maintain an erection for all sorts of reasons including illness, chronic disease and as a side effect of other medications. There is actually NO justification for denying a man medical treatment to restore normal or near normal function of a body function -especially given the fact a sex life is actually a very significant part of an adult's life.

Not everything that has to do with the reproductive system is equal though -and the argument that if Viagra is covered, so must birth control pills is THE phoniest one going. Viagra allows men to be able to HAVE sex. That isn't true of birth control pills. Birth control pills actually cause the impairment of a normal body function -and medical treatment is NOT about causing IMPAIRMENT.

And PULLEEZE -enough of dragging out the medical reasons that birth control pills are sometimes prescribed for something other than contraceptive. An entirely specious argument. Everyone knows we are talking about their use as a CONTRACEPTIVE and NOT as a medication, ok? So your little list of other problems is irrelevant. Even the self insured plans of the Catholic Church will cover birth control pills when prescribed as medication to treat specific conditions -and has for at least 20 years if not longer so that has nothing to do with this. The reason birth control pills are covered when used as a medication to treat actual medical conditions is because they are never prescribed indefinitely but for a set period of time only -usually just one month. After which if the problem has not resolved other treatment is considered. UNLESS the woman wishes to continue with birth control pills as a contraceptive -then it will be continued and then it will be denied by the Catholic church and insurance plans that do not cover contraceptives. When used as a medication to treat a specific problem, they are NOT prescribed indefinitely. When they are it is because they are ALSO being used as contraceptives at that point. At which time insurance plans that do not cover contraceptives and the Catholic Church will no longer cover them. So one more phony argument -in an argument that is an entirely contrived, manufactured BULLSHIT issue deliberately created by Obama in the first place as George Stephanolopous proved. Probably so you wouldn't be discussing his abysmal economic record, huh.
 
Last edited:
as long as "husbands" or the man can't support his own family on his income, women in the work force, use ....birth control.

most married women use birth control to plan their pregnancies for nearly 30 years of their life, including most Catholic women....otherwise every family would have 10 kids....the woman would still be barefoot and pregnant most of their lives.
 
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.


Frazzle - The argument is NOT if a lady purchases her own BC pills she'll be more likely to get pregnant (not sure how you arrived here); instead, the argument is a woman is MORE LIKELY to use the birth control option if their plan covers it than if their plan does not cover it.

It's simple economics. If you pay $40/month for premium and get BC coverage (@ no additional cost), it's much easier to make the leap and get on the pill at no additional cost vs paying $40/month for premium and have to pay an extra $30/month for the pill.

This makes sense - to me - because when health insurance covers BC, it makes it much more accessible to the female. And when something is easier to buy, and cheaper to buy, it is more likely to get purchased.

It's statistics.

And finally, the core of my argument is that it's cheaper for the insurance to shell out an additional $500 (or whatever BC pills costs) to women who want it, because it protects the insurance company from the risk and the loss they will be more likely to experience if the woman were to become pregnant (and end up costing the insurance company thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars that year).

A sexually active woman on the pill is probably at 3% risk of getting pregnant, vs maybe a 30-40% risk of getting pregnant if they're not on the pill.

So why is my viewpoint "phony" and "contrived"? Not following you.
 
It's a tough sell for me to understand how this administration
ever thought the Catholic Church or the Jesuits at Georgetown
would go along with this in the first place.

Someone has some splainin to do....
 
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.


Frazzle - The argument is NOT if a lady purchases her own BC pills she'll be more likely to get pregnant (not sure how you arrived here); instead, the argument is a woman is MORE LIKELY to use the birth control option if their plan covers it than if their plan does not cover it.

It's simple economics. If you pay $40/month for premium and get BC coverage (@ no additional cost), it's much easier to make the leap and get on the pill at no additional cost vs paying $40/month for premium and have to pay an extra $30/month for the pill.

This makes sense - to me - because when health insurance covers BC, it makes it much more accessible to the female. And when something is easier to buy, and cheaper to buy, it is more likely to get purchased.

It's statistics.

And finally, the core of my argument is that it's cheaper for the insurance to shell out an additional $500 (or whatever BC pills costs) to women who want it, because it protects the insurance company from the risk and the loss they will be more likely to experience if the woman were to become pregnant (and end up costing the insurance company thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars that year).

A sexually active woman on the pill is probably at 3% risk of getting pregnant, vs maybe a 30-40% risk of getting pregnant if they're not on the pill.

So why is my viewpoint "phony" and "contrived"? Not following you.

In light of frazzled's excellent analysis, your argument makes less sense than usual.
 
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.


Frazzle - The argument is NOT if a lady purchases her own BC pills she'll be more likely to get pregnant (not sure how you arrived here); instead, the argument is a woman is MORE LIKELY to use the birth control option if their plan covers it than if their plan does not cover it.

It's simple economics. If you pay $40/month for premium and get BC coverage (@ no additional cost), it's much easier to make the leap and get on the pill at no additional cost vs paying $40/month for premium and have to pay an extra $30/month for the pill.

This makes sense - to me - because when health insurance covers BC, it makes it much more accessible to the female. And when something is easier to buy, and cheaper to buy, it is more likely to get purchased.

It's statistics.

And finally, the core of my argument is that it's cheaper for the insurance to shell out an additional $500 (or whatever BC pills costs) to women who want it, because it protects the insurance company from the risk and the loss they will be more likely to experience if the woman were to become pregnant (and end up costing the insurance company thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars that year).

A sexually active woman on the pill is probably at 3% risk of getting pregnant, vs maybe a 30-40% risk of getting pregnant if they're not on the pill.

So why is my viewpoint "phony" and "contrived"? Not following you.

In light of frazzled's excellent analysis, your argument makes less sense than usual.

How do you figure Katz?

Frazzle seems to have missed my point on a few accounts. One, he somehow thought my argument was "women who get access to the pill via their insurance coverage are less likely to get pregnant than women who pay out of pocket for the pill". This is not my argument, nor does it make sense. Any women on the pill will have the same % chance of getting pregnant, no matter where/how she obtained the pill.

Secondly, Frazzle seems to not understand that this conversation is about protecting oneself from RISK.

Frazzle talks says that under my reasoning, the government should give taxpayers "free cars" because "buying a car" is cheaper than the hospital bills when the car hits a person. This is TOTALLY misses the point, and makes no sense at all. Why? Because the government buying people free cars doesn't protect any pool of people against RISK. RISK is the whole point of the conversation.

In plain terms:

Free BC will equate to less pregnancies for those who don't want to get pregnant.

However, free Cars does not equal less car accidents. It just equals a free car.

Get it?

Let me make my point clear, in case it wasn't before, so that at least we can all be talking about the same thing here:

It's in the insurance company's best interest to include contraception coverage. This is because if they include birth control within the cost of premium, sexually active women within the insurance pool who don't want children will be MORE LIKELY to use the pill, and therefore will be LESS LIKELY to get pregnant as a result of their sex.

If an insurance company does not offer the pill, sexually active women within the pool will be LESS LIKELY to use the pill (because they will have to dish out extra for the pill - added costs are a deterrent), and therefore MORE LIKELY to get pregnant.

Finally, a woman who's pregnant is MUCH MORE expensive to an insurance company than a woman who's not pregnant.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top