Why should employers provide free birth control?

[waitforufo]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Maybe start a thread about how insurance works?

Why start a topic on how insurance works?  The concept is very simple.  Insurance is a means by which people pay expenses.  Since we are talking about medical expenses in this topic, let's narrow the conversation to that type of expense.  Let's start by defining just what the expenses are and then talk about how they are paid.

Medical expenses are simple.  Every person providing a medical service has to be paid.  Every piece of medical equipment utilized has to be paid for, maintained, and replaced when worn out or obsolete.  All medicine needs to be paid for.  All medical disposables such as tongue depressors, syringes, rubber gloves, have to be paid for.  There is no magic, so all of this has to be paid for.

Insurance is one means by which people pay for these expenses.  A recurring fee, or premium, is paid by insurance participants, typically on a monthly basis to an insurance company, and that company then pays for medical expenses for participants as they occur.  Simple.

So what value do individual insurance participants get for their premium?  Well some people win life's lottery and never access medical care. These people receive the value of peace of mind knowing that if they do occur they will be paid for.  Other people have a life full of medical tragedy and require constant expensive medical care.  Those people are insurance lottery winners.  They receive a value far in excess of their premiums over time.  Most people however have typical occasional medical expenses, which at times are high cost.  These people receive the value of spreading the cost of their medical expenses over their lifetime which prevents their rare high cost medical expenses from also being a financial tragedy for themselves and their family. Since the life lottery winners cancel out the insurance lottery winners, insurance premiums are determined by the medical expenses of the typical person.  This is how it should be.

That means it is correct for and individual to say I pay for my own medical expenses by paying for my medical insurance premiums.

It is quite common for an individual to pay the insurance premiums of others.  For example, I currently pay the medical insurance for my spouse, and in the past, I paid the medical insurance for my children.  Again, it is correct for a person to say I pay the medical expenses of others when I pay their medical insurance premium. 

If one's taxes are subsidizing the insurance premiums of another person, that tax payer is paying the medical expenses of that subsidized person.  This is simple logic people.

Now, how does one keep the cost of medical insurance low?  Well, one can attempt to get currently healthy people to participate in insurance.  By paying now, their individual premiums pay the medical expenses of people currently unhealthy, and when those people are healthy they pay the medical expenses of the person paying now.  That's how insurance spreads an individual's medical expenses over time.   Again, that's how insurance works.

So how do you get currently health people to participate in insurance?  Well you can penalize those not paying for insurance. One way to do that is to penalize them by law through taxes.  The other way is to penalize them through their medical expenses.  Those without insurance pay more than those with insurance.

Another way to reduce insurance costs is to cover fewer things.  For example, some might think that aroma therapy improves their health.  Most however think this is quackery so aroma therapy is not covered to reduce insurance costs.  Also, not all medical devices are covered.  Tooth brushes and bathroom scales are an example. The costs of these medical devices are purchased by individuals on an as needed basis.  The same goes for over the counter medicines. 

The question at hand, is should birth control be a covered or uncovered expense.  I say uncovered.  The expense is just not that high and people should bear the cost of their elective activities.

One way to increase the cost of medical insurance to is to pay for medical care for those who don't pay premiums.  While this might be a altruistic thing to do, it does not reduce the cost of medical insurance. 

[Ten oz]

@ Waitforufo, how about we allow Doctors to decide which things their patients require. Rather than having lay people render judgements on the value of birth control, aroma therapy, and etc should not Doctors administering the care be empowered to decide what's best? Doctors have a very difficult job which often calls upon them to make life or death choices. They really do not need to added distraction of wondering about what is or isn't covered by their patients healthcare plans. If a Doctor want to prescribe birth control to a patient they should be able to and their reason for doing so is no ones business; Doctor patient privilege.

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Why start a topic on how insurance works? 

Because you seem confused about the concept. 

18 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

The concept is very simple. ...

Yes, it is.

18 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

 If one's taxes are subsidizing the insurance premiums of another person, that tax payer is paying the medical expenses of that subsidized person.  This is simple logic people.

But the topic at hand is employers paying for insurance, and one specific situation being covered. Nothing to do with taxes.

So all of this is irrelevant

18 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

The question at hand, is should birth control be a covered or uncovered expense.  I say uncovered.  The expense is just not that high and people should bear the cost of their elective activities.

How much does a birth cost? How much does contraception cost?

[waitforufo]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Because you seem confused about the concept. 

I provided my understanding of insurance.  What part did I get wrong.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But the topic at hand is employers paying for insurance, and one specific situation being covered. Nothing to do with taxes.

You and rangerx objected to my comment "Why I should have to pay for birth control for others is beyond me. "  My response explains how I am paying for the birth control of others by subsisting their  insurance premiums through my taxes.  Also, insurance paid by employers is part of employee compensation.   The expense of this portion of employee compensation determines how much the employee receives.  Increasing the cost, means employees get less.  This is a cost to the employee.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How much does a birth cost? How much does contraception cost?

I have seen condoms sold for 50 cents in vending machines.  They are less at the pharmacy.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

@ Waitforufo, how about we allow Doctors to decide which things their patients require. Rather than having lay people render judgements on the value of birth control, aroma therapy, and etc should not Doctors administering the care be empowered to decide what's best? Doctors have a very difficult job which often calls upon them to make life or death choices. They really do not need to added distraction of wondering about what is or isn't covered by their patients healthcare plans. If a Doctor want to prescribe birth control to a patient they should be able to and their reason for doing so is no ones business; Doctor patient privilege.

Elective medical procedures and medicine are not covered by insurance.  Birth control is elective medicine.  Also quacks and frauds exist and they drive up the cost of medical care.  So you can have all the doctor patient privilege you are personally willing to pay for.  You can't put that cost on others.

As I said, medical care cost money and somebody has to pay for it. There are no medical care pixies that magically pay the cost.  The only people that pay medical expenses are patients and tax payers.  That's it.

[Ten oz]

35 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Elective medical procedures and medicine are not covered by insurance.  Birth control is elective medicine.  Also quacks and frauds exist and they drive up the cost of medical care.  So you can have all the doctor patient privilege you are personally willing to pay for.  You can't put that cost on others.

As I said, medical care cost money and somebody has to pay for it. There are no medical care pixies that magically pay the cost.  The only people that pay medical expenses are patients and tax payers.  That's it.

You keep repeating this despite it being provably untrue. As CharonY has already pointed out there are many reasons why a Doctor might prescribe someone birth control. As you will see in the survey I linked below pregnancy prevention is NOT the main cited reason for using birth  control and hundreds of thousands who use birth control aren't even sexually active. You are using false claims to justify your position and whenever that is neccessary it means the position attempting to be justified is wrong.

21 hours ago, CharonY said:

My argument is that a) health plans have to cover preventive care (such as diagnostic tests and vaccines for example) and for good reason  b) the pill is used for many non sex-related reasons including control of menstrual cramps, endometriosis, primary ovarian insufficiency and polycystic ovary syndrome to name a few c) pregnancy is a high health burden .

Considering the medical relevance of one vs the other I maintain it is hypocritical to selectively limit access to one of them

To your point:

"The researchers examined data from the National Survey of Family Growth, a poll administered by the National Center for Health Statistics. In-person interviews of 7,356 women ages 15 to 44 were conducted between June 2006 and December 2008, with results being weighted to ensure the findings were nationally representative.

Nationwide, about 11.2 million women ages 15 to 44, or 18 percent of all U.S. women, currently use oral contraceptive pills. Of these women, 86 percent report taking the pill for birth control. The other most commonly cited reasons for taking the pill are: reducing cramps or menstrual pain (31 percent); menstrual regulation (28 percent); treatment of acne (14 percent); and treatment of endometriosis (4 percent). Endometriosis is an often painful disorder in which tissue that normally lines the inside of the uterus grows elsewhere in the body, typically within the pelvic region, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Furthermore, 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, primarily for non-contraceptive purposes. Fifty-seven percent said they use it to treat menstrual pain, 43 percent for menstrual regulation, and 26 percent for acne treatment"

https://www.livescience.com/17061-oral-contraceptive-pill-guttmacher-survey.html

[John Cuthber]

18 hours ago, waitforufo said:

hypocrisy in birth control coverage would be to pay for birth control pills, IUDs, etc, for women but not pay for condoms for men.  

In the UK condoms are available free.

Please fix your healthcare system.

[waitforufo]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You keep repeating this despite it being provably untrue. As CharonY has already pointed out there are many reasons why a Doctor might prescribe someone birth control. As you will see in the survey I linked below pregnancy prevention is NOT the main cited reason for using birth  control and hundreds of thousands who use birth control aren't even sexually active. You are using false claims to justify your position and whenever that is neccessary it means the position attempting to be justified is wrong.

To your point:

"The researchers examined data from the National Survey of Family Growth, a poll administered by the National Center for Health Statistics. In-person interviews of 7,356 women ages 15 to 44 were conducted between June 2006 and December 2008, with results being weighted to ensure the findings were nationally representative.

Nationwide, about 11.2 million women ages 15 to 44, or 18 percent of all U.S. women, currently use oral contraceptive pills. Of these women, 86 percent report taking the pill for birth control. The other most commonly cited reasons for taking the pill are: reducing cramps or menstrual pain (31 percent); menstrual regulation (28 percent); treatment of acne (14 percent); and treatment of endometriosis (4 percent). Endometriosis is an often painful disorder in which tissue that normally lines the inside of the uterus grows elsewhere in the body, typically within the pelvic region, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Furthermore, 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, primarily for non-contraceptive purposes. Fifty-seven percent said they use it to treat menstrual pain, 43 percent for menstrual regulation, and 26 percent for acne treatment"

https://www.livescience.com/17061-oral-contraceptive-pill-guttmacher-survey.html

I never said the medication (hormones) in birth control pills could not be prescribed for purposes other than pregnancy prevention.  Please quote me if I did.   

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

In the UK condoms are available free.

Please fix your healthcare system.

That would be fair.

[rangerx]

3 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Increasing the cost, means employees get less.  This is a cost to the employee.

The classic example of penny wise, pound foolish.

Owing to the fact America turns a blind eye to universal healthcare, the burden has been placed on employers. A healthy, content workforce increases productivity. Daycare is a huge burden to the modern family. One of the big three (mortgage, car, daycare) that pretty much guarantees employees live from paycheck to paycheck. Paid maternity leave is infinitely more costly than that of contraception.

I really doubt the OP is genuine in the context as it's presented insomuch as a dog whistle to detract from the agenda of regulating reproductive rights and undermining all forms of healthcare in general.

 

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I never said the medication (hormones) in birth control pills could not be prescribed for purposes other than pregnancy prevention.  Please quote me if I did.   

That would be fair.

 

4 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Elective medical procedures and medicine are not covered by insurance.  Birth control is elective medicine.

When being used for Endometriosis how is it "elective"? When being used for painful cramps how is it anymore "elective" that Motrin, Codeine, or any other of the various medications used to manage pain which are covered by insurance? When used for acne how is it anymore "elective" than traiz, tretinoin, or etc?

 

You acknowledge that birth control is used from others things yet continue to call it elective with distinguishing between the various applications. Rather you are generalizing.

[Phi for All]

37 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Owing to the fact America turns a blind eye to universal healthcare, the burden has been placed on employers.

Employers now like to claim they've been burdened, but iirc, employers offered access to health insurance as part of a benefits package to attract workers. If they are backing down on this part of the deal, employees should be compensated. 

[Moontanman]

The whole idea of not paying for birth control is smoke and mirrors to cover up religious control and or persecution. Insurance with birth control is cheaper or exactly the same as health insurance without birth control. In fact I have had insurance providers (friends who worked at them) say that most of the time birth control must be written out of most plans to prevent it from being covered not added. Not to mention that health insurance with birth control is actually cheaper.

Any argument that claims to worry about costs is either dishonest or ignorant of the facts. 

No one would want to exclude birth control for costs, it's strictly people imposing their religious beliefs on others... 

[rangerx]

7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Any argument that claims to worry about costs is either dishonest or ignorant of the facts. 

Exactly. The OP can be likened to complaining about paying taxes for bridges because people are too lazy to swim or too cheap to buy a boat.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, waitforufo said:

I provided my understanding of insurance.  What part did I get wrong.

The part where you are paying for other people to be on your employer's insurance.

Quote

You and rangerx objected to my comment "Why I should have to pay for birth control for others is beyond me. "  My response explains how I am paying for the birth control of others by subsisting their  insurance premiums through my taxes. 

Irrelevant to the discussion, which is about employers providing insurance.

Quote

Also, insurance paid by employers is part of employee compensation.   The expense of this portion of employee compensation determines how much the employee receives.  Increasing the cost, means employees get less.  This is a cost to the employee.

Yes. The employee. It doesn't come out of your pocket.

Quote

I have seen condoms sold for 50 cents in vending machines.  They are less at the pharmacy.

Elective medical procedures and medicine are not covered by insurance.  Birth control is elective medicine.  Also quacks and frauds exist and they drive up the cost of medical care.  So you can have all the doctor patient privilege you are personally willing to pay for.  You can't put that cost on others.

As I said, medical care cost money and somebody has to pay for it. There are no medical care pixies that magically pay the cost.  The only people that pay medical expenses are patients and tax payers.  That's it.

Condoms are only one form of birth control, and the topic is contraception for women. Birth control is cheap compared to the cost of pregnancy, which is the motivation behind having it provided. Otherwise no, it is not that cheap.

5 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 Elective medical procedures and medicine are not covered by insurance.

Nope.

https://www.verywell.com/will-health-insurance-pay-for-elective-surgery-1738562

Quote

Health insurance will pay for elective surgery. In fact, the majority of surgical procedures done in the United States are elective surgeries; most are paid for, at least in part, by health insurance. Even Medicare and Medicaid pay for elective surgery.

 

[CharonY]

I am utterly at a loss why one would discount preventive care as cornerstone of modern health care. If something improves public health, reduces risk of poverty and is cheap, why would one object to it? What are the downsides? As Moon pointed out, the only argument seems to be a religious one, which is clearly not a great basis to implement health care policy (yet precisely this is happening). As others pointed out, insurers actually like to cover contraception as it results in savings for them . On top of it, contraceptives save ~ $19 billions in medical costs each year (Trussel Contraception 75 (2007) 168 – 170). 

Whether certain other aspects are covered by health insurance or not are, in my opinion, distractions. After all, the main reasons to decide on what to include in effective health insurance is whether it offers health benefits (a clear yes on contraception and many preventive care measures), possibly relative to its cost (where contraception is also a clear winner).

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

I am utterly at a loss why one would discount preventive care as cornerstone of modern health care. If something improves public health, reduces risk of poverty and is cheap, why would one object to it?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-room-full-men-decide-fate-womens-health-maternity-coverage_uk_58d4cf55e4b02a2eaab254a4

 

Nobody else would be that stupid.

 

Oh, hang on...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39264349

 

Remind me what you said about religion being involved...

Edited October 10, 2017 by John Cuthber

[MigL]

I find it somewhat ironic that a lot of countries have introduced a 'baby bonus' system, which in Canada is approx. CAN$1300 per child, as a means of promoting child-birth and combat an aging population, yet, provide 'free' contraception through the Health Care system.
But I suppose, wanted children ( by choice ) are a better outcome than the alternatives. 

[Ten oz]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

I find it somewhat ironic that a lot of countries have introduced a 'baby bonus' system, which in Canada is approx. CAN$1300 per child, as a means of promoting child-birth and combat an aging population, yet, provide 'free' contraception through the Health Care system.
But I suppose, wanted children ( by choice ) are a better outcome than the alternatives. 

Contraception serves more purposes than avoiding the opposite of "wanted children". This point really shouldn't have to made over and over again.

[MigL]

Not the only purpose, but it is an important one.
The well-being of the children depends on it.

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Not the only purpose, but it is an important one.
The well-being of the children depends on it.

 You may find it "ironic" that Canada is interested in encouraging people to reproduce yet have a healthcare system the provides contraception but I think that view distorts the purpose of what's provided. The majority number of women use birth control for reasons other than pregnancy avoidance. While condom use is important for STD protection which is critical to having a healthy population capable of reproduction. Bringing the importance of planned vs unplanned pregnancies into this only muddies the waters. It implies a direct relationship between a nations birth rate, outcomes, and the use of birth control. Can you provide a citation that such direct connections exist?

 

"Among the reasons for using oral contraception other than the most obvious one are reducing cramps associated with periods, regulating periods, which for some women can prevent menstrual-related migraine headaches. Other uses include controlling endometriosis, a condition in which uterine tissue grows outside the uterus, and reducing bleeding due to uterine fibroid tumors. Some women also use birth control pills to control acne. In fact, the study found, most women who use the pill use it for multiple reasons. Only a minority — 42 percent — said they used it exclusively for contraception."

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/11/15/142358413/the-pill-not-just-for-pregnancy-prevention

[swansont]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

I find it somewhat ironic that a lot of countries have introduced a 'baby bonus' system, which in Canada is approx. CAN$1300 per child, as a means of promoting child-birth and combat an aging population, yet, provide 'free' contraception through the Health Care system.
But I suppose, wanted children ( by choice ) are a better outcome than the alternatives. 

Contraception use to avoid pregnancy is not limited to people who never want kids. It's a matter of timing as well — they don't want kids right now; there's nothing ironic about that position (as it were). In a lot of developed countries the birth rate is at or below 2 for population that's been there at least a generation. In the US it's becoming increasingly difficult to get a foothold on an independent life , with the cost of housing and education debt, and the morphing nature of the job market. It's no surprise that people want to delay having kids.