Will Someone Please Pay for my Rubbers

[Conan71]

I get so confused with this issue. Again, how is it free when its part of an insurance premium that you, or your employer, or both are paying? If the employer includes it in his insurance plan, it is still part of the benefits package he uses to compensate employees.

So, where does the "free" come in?

People just figure someone else is paying for it, not them.

[AquaMan]

Those people being politicians and hecklers spinning the (non)issue for their own needs.

[guido911]

I get so confused with this issue. Again, how is it free when its part of an insurance premium that you, or your employer, or both are paying? If the employer includes it in his insurance plan, it is still part of the benefits package he uses to compensate employees.

So, where does the "free" come in?

Ask that bozo in the Mitt clip. She's the one wanting free stuff.

[swake]

I get so confused with this issue. Again, how is it free when its part of an insurance premium that you, or your employer, or both are paying? If the employer includes it in his insurance plan, it is still part of the benefits package he uses to compensate employees.

So, where does the "free" come in?

Because it's use likely lowers the cost of the insurance plan to the insurer.

[erfalf]

Heard an interesting take on this.

Generally speaking you purchase insurance in order to hedge the financial risk associated with whatever. I purchase health insurance (well through my company in my case) so that I am protected financially (not health) in case of unlikely health related events. Same with auto & life.

Now, contraception in general is a choice, lets compare it to an elective procedure. You don't really have to have it in order to be healthy (I know there are exceptions but in general this is true). So once the decision is made, the "risk" of the cost is out the window. It is going to cost the insurance company and in turn you with higher premiums. This whole notion that it will be "free" is a farce. Someone will pay, and it is not going to be insurance companies.

Question: Having never had any elective procedures, how does insurance pay for these types of things? I know with dental, they pay more for the more basic services, less for servicees that would be considered an upgrade per say. How do health insurers treat these types of elective procedures?

[nathanm]

The thing you're missing is that contraception delays or eliminates the need for them to pay for one of the most expensive conditions a person can have: pregnancy.

Moreover hormonal birth control is often prescribed for medical conditions like ovarian cysts and dysmenorrhea.

[erfalf]

The thing you're missing is that contraception delays or eliminates the need for them to pay for one of the most expensive conditions a person can have: pregnancy.

Moreover hormonal birth control is often prescribed for medical conditions like ovarian cysts and dysmenorrhea.

The only point that was made was that risk was eliminated when a woman chooses to use contraception, therefore extraordinarily easy for insurance companies to pass on the cost to users. So, if that is the case, outside of legitimate medical needs for birth control not including the prevention of pregnancy, why should insurance companies be forced to cover it if they are basically acting as a pass through? Why not let women actually shop for it like we do with other choices we make. It just seems like this does not to really address the problem  (or perceived problem) of access or cost.

I also understand that from an insurance companies perspective, birth control may cause reductions in their risk profile, of course I don't have the kind of actuarial tables they do. Maybe someone else here knows.  But the logic seems to make sense.

The other point I heard the guy make was that having things "for free" causes moral hazard. Women will likely not care the cost of the product, which may lead to even higher costs for the consumer. It's been shown to occur in other instances, why not here?

[nathanm]

The other point I heard the guy make was that having things "for free" causes moral hazard. Women will likely not care the cost of the product, which may lead to even higher costs for the consumer. It's been shown to occur in other instances, why not here?

Given that it's a medicine, the different forms of hormonal birth control aren't necessarily interchangeable for all women. The side effects are different between patients, so they don't necessarily have as much choice in the matter as you might think. It's not like choosing between two different brands of paint at Home Depot.

[Ed W]

The thing you're missing is that contraception delays or eliminates the need for them to pay for one of the most expensive conditions a person can have: pregnancy.

Moreover hormonal birth control is often prescribed for medical conditions like ovarian cysts and dysmenorrhea.

One point they've made is that viagra and the like is usually covered by insurance, while women's birth control is not. Is the inability to have and maintain an erection a medical condition or is it primarily recreational?  It seems to me that if insurance covers one, it should cover the other also. 

[we vs us]

Heard an interesting take on this.

Generally speaking you purchase insurance in order to hedge the financial risk associated with whatever. I purchase health insurance (well through my company in my case) so that I am protected financially (not health) in case of unlikely health related events. Same with auto & life.

But in actuality, health insurance doesn't function like other types of insurance.  While others hedge against unlikely events, health insurance defrays costs of common health events by sharing the cost with your employer and spreading the risk among pools of other employees from other companies.  So while your insurance might cover parts of the relatively unlikely event that you'll get cancer and need extended treatment (for instance), it's far more common use is to reduce the cost of standard Dr. visits, or common medications, etc.  As I've written here before, health insurance is a misnomer; it might more accurately be called an employer-chosen discount club. 

From a societal standpoint, cheap birth control is nothing but awesome.  Why?  The ability to plan families frees women to join the education and labor pools on more than a conditional basis; allows both men and women greater ability to adequately support their families (by letting family units control their own growth); and lessens the number of unwanted pregnancies amongst populations least inclined or least able to support children. Obviously there're a scad of other good reasons, too (as nathan mentioned, in some cases with women's health, certain birth control pills are used as preventatives, etc); but those three things alone should be reason enough. 

I find it interesting that the core conservative argument against any form of social welfare these days is the "why should I pay for someone else's ___?" It's a funny little construction, actually. It suggests, among other things, that if a given budgetary line item falls outside a given conservative's moral, economic, or ideological preference, then it should be struck from governmental responsibility.  You don't personally like contraception, and can't imagine a case where it might be worthwhile to subsidize it?  Well, don't pay those sluts with MY tax money.  They can buy their sex pills on the open market.  All at once it's a failure of moral imagination ("I can't possibly understand where a different situation from mine might exist where this could be a necessity,") and a nasty little failure of the idea of community, governance, and patriotism ("I should get to say exactly who my government welfare should and should not cover -- who the deserving of my fellow countrymen are and aren't.") 

Whichever secret linguistic lab of the rightie movement came up with phraseology this should be ashamed. By making this the central talking point, the central argument against welfare, it's moved its people squarely into the 'love you, I've got mine," camp. 

[AquaMan]

How long will it be till Oklahoma passes a law that says any one using insurance to cover their birth control methods will have to be drug tested and shown pictures of unfertilized eggs?

[Red Arrow]

How long will it be till Oklahoma passes a law that says any one using insurance to cover their birth control methods will have to be drug tested and shown pictures of unfertilized eggs?

November, unfortunately.

I hope you Democrats put up someone I could vote for.

[Hoss]

November, unfortunately.

I hope you Democrats put up someone I could vote for.

I feel the same way about Republicans, unfortunately.  Last one I voted for was Largent.  Had McCain not selected Gotcha McGovernor, I might have voted for him in 2008.

[Red Arrow]

I feel the same way about Republicans, unfortunately.  Last one I voted for was Largent.  Had McCain not selected Gotcha McGovernor, I might have voted for him in 2008.

I voted for Brad Henry his second time around.  He hadn't screwed things up too bad and Istook was not too appealing but I don't remember the specifics now.  I do remember that I voted for a D for Gov.

[Townsend]

Top 5 Worst U.S. States for Women

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/23/top-5-worst-u-s-states-for-women/#2-oklahoma

Oklahoma is ranked #2 in this article.  Mississippi wins again.

A woman's right to choose is also compromised in Oklahoma. (Are you starting to recognize a pattern?) Women wanting to terminate a pregnancy in the Sooner State likely need to travel, as there are only six abortion doctors in the entire region. Once they've traveled, they'll also have to wait a full 24 hours after their first visit to the doctor, where they will only be allowed to have a sonogram and hear details about the fetus. They'll have to wait until the next day to have the procedure, which their health insurance won't be covering. There's also a sizable chance they won't have health insurance anyway, as 1 in 4 women are without coverage. What's more, the share of women in the Oklahoma legislature is a pitiful 12.8%, and there are no women in its Congress.