According to Planned Parenthood, women of reproductive age spend 68% more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men. This is because a large number of insurance companies do not cover reversible contraception. Some quick facts:



Since the introduction of the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act in 1997, 20 states have adopted laws and regulations to deal with this issue, but organizations like Planned Parenthood are pushing legislators to enact the EPICC on the federal level.

The questions for debate:

Is it right for insurance companies to cover prescriptions such as Viagra but to deny coverage for reversible contraception?

Is the EPICC act a good idea?

Would insurance companies benefit in the long run from covering reversible contraception?

In order to view the full text of the bill go to The Library of Congress and type H.R. 2727 into the "Bill Number" field.

Is it right for insurance companies to cover prescriptions such as Viagra but to deny coverage for reversible contraception?
Well Viagra and other sexual enhancers are used to treat an ailment, in the case of Viagra it treats erectile disfunction. Birth control pills are precautionary medicine, its something thats nice to have but it isn't necessary for the well being of the patient. To me it's like being able to charge my multi vitamins to to my prescription plan, or condoms which will not only prevent pregnancy but the spread of disease as well.
Is the EPICC act a good idea?
Don't know, the link ain't working, but having my insurance rates jacked up because a women without a disease wants an optional treatment doesn't sound too good to me.
Would insurance companies benefit in the long run from covering reversible contraception?
What do you mean by "reversible contraception." Do you mean something like a vasectomy? Even though those are reversible it's not 100%. If ain't broke don't fix it, and please don't make me pay for it. If your talking birth control pills and patches, I think since it's the person decision to treat a something that is not considered and ailment they should pay the price for it as well. Either way if more people start using these "reversible contraceptions" the insurance company isn't going to take a loss because of it. It would be up the subscribers to the plan to cover the costs. We already have enough hypochondriacs draining the system, why make it worse.

Reversible contraception basically refers to non-surgical contraception. It includes IUDs, oral contraception, etc.



Is Viagra really necessary for the well-being of the patient? I think that it can be because I'm a proponent of having a healthy sex life, but from my understanding that's the only aspect that it improves. I view birth control in much the same way. A woman can't generally have a healthy sex life without it unless she wants to become pregnant, and given the average of two children per household, that leaves quite a bit of time during a woman's reproductive life that she needs to be on birth control even if she does want to have children.

Additionally, I am of the opinion that preventative medicine actually saves money in the long run, and to some degree the insurers agree with me. They cover physicals in order to catch problems in their early stages.

Birth control is not much different. Look at the following stats from Cover my Pills.



Birth control is the most cost effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancy outside of abstinence. Do you think that women should just refrain from sexual activity or is it just that women should pay for it out of their own pockets? If the latter is the case then why should men not have to pay for their Viagra?

Is it right for insurance companies to cover prescriptions such as Viagra but to deny coverage for reversible contraception?

It would probably be difficult for most people to ascertain what is "right" and "not right" with regard to exactly what coverage should be without having knowledge about the exact reasons why the insurance companies would choose to cover Viagra but deny coverage for reversible contraception.

Is the EPICC act a good idea?

After reading the text, it seems like a good idea to me (more below).

Would insurance companies benefit in the long run from covering reversible contraception?

Based on the research stated in the resolution, it seems that insurance companies (and through them, all of us) would only benefit in the long term. Increases in costs for providing contraceptive coverage are offset by decreases in costs for avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

You also have to weigh in something that does not translate to dollars saved or lost; there is some sort of human cost involved here, although I'll be the first to admit it is difficult to weigh or make tangible from a bean-counting perspective. The congressional research cites a figure of 3,000,000 unwanted pregnancies per year in the US. If that number is anywhere near accurate, and if contraceptive coverage would encourage avoiding some percentage of that, then... ? Why not do this for the sake of human benefit?

The research also cites a figure of eight in 10 privately insured adults supporting the notion of contraceptive coverage, which (if it was true) would mean that a clear majority aren't as concerned about increased premiums as they are concerned about effective contraception.

Is it right for insurance companies to cover prescriptions such as Viagra but to deny coverage for reversible contraception?

Is the EPICC act a good idea?

The EPICC Act is about fairness. If insurance companies provide full or partial coverage for services that enhance the chances of conceiving children or turn infertile couples into parents (in-vitro, intra-uterine insemination, fertility drugs, etc.) it's only right to provide coverage for the other side of that same coin.

Viagra is not only prescribed with treating an "ailment" in mind.



BCPs, unlike Viagra, are prescribed for reasons other than sex: acne, heavy periods, and regulating spotting.

I also support coverage for female Viagra and male BCPs. The last birth control method invented for men happened hundreds of years ago. They are past due for taking more of the responsibility typically laid on women for birth control. From an empowering standpoint male BCPs will hopefully lower the number of men tricked into child support.

Would insurance companies benefit in the long run from covering reversible contraception?

It would benefit insurance companies to some degree, although I think society on the whole will reap the greater benefit. Namely fewer unwanted pregnancies and greater access to medical information and assistance with family planning.

Conservatives will say, or have said (it looks like this bill has bounced in Congress for years) that it will burden insurance companies. Five Viagra tablets cost $100, or $20 a pill. A three-month supply of Ortho-Cept costs $48, or $16 dollars for a 28-day supply. If insurance companies have no problem covering Viagra after patients pay their $10 - $30 deductable, insurance companies should have no problem covering generic BCPs as well.

The other resistance is religious in nature. Darlings like (<-- pdf file) Senator Santorum ("I will not be supportive of covering medications that would lead to a fertilized egg not implanted in the uterus. I believe life begins at conception. I would not support drugs that would prevent a conceived embryo to be implanted") will push the issue that BCPs are abortifacient. Other pro-life activists/lobbyists just don't like the idea of Americans enjoying sex and dodging God's plans. Like Paul Likoudis, Randall Terry: "I don’t think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your marriage as often as you like — and if you have babies, you have babies..." or Joseph Scheidler: "I would like to outlaw contraception… contraception is disgusting — people using each other for pleasure.”

They will also attack health risks associated with BCPs under the pretense of health concerns for women, and blame birth control for promiscuity to try to stall the bill. I doubt, however, they will touch on the medical risks associated with Viagra or the rise in STDs among seniors.

P.S. The bill may be going through tweaks. The Library hasn't uploaded H.R. 2727 yet. =/

One would think that it would bring more benefits in the long run to cover the birth control pill fully.

It is much cheaper to pay for years worth of the birth control pill than to pay for pregnancy, childbirth and other associated costs.

Regrettably, the insurance companies seem to have a policy of doing things after the fact, rather than doing things preventatively. That might seem good short-term, but I think that they pay for it in the end.

Also - regarding the Viagra vs. contraception (female) funding, I sometimes wonder if it's not because of a bit of sexism, not necessarily deliberate. (note that saying...I don't think it's done on purpose....at least, I hope not.)

Viagra is a male thing, and I think men make more insurance rules and own more insurance companies. The Pill is a female contraceptive. Of course, the Pill is used for medical reasons too - in the case of endrometriosis. It can be very helpful.

Viagra might well be closer to the hearts of the men running the insurance companies and/or making the decisions, as it affects males and they understand the male problem better than the female issue of the necessity of avoiding pregnancy, etc.

Perhaps one day with more women in positions to influence things, there will be more understanding and better coverage.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Is it right for insurance companies to cover prescriptions such as Viagra but to deny coverage for reversible contraception? No, I don't think it's right. I actually think it should be the other way around. Health care coverage does include preventative medicine. As has been mentioned, annual exams are paid for as a preventative measure. We all receive immunizations for this reason as well.

Is the EPICC act a good idea? I'm not sure I like the idea of the Federal government dictating to insurance companies that they have to pay for contraception. Is it really equal to pay for women's contraception and not men's? The male pill has a lot of side effects, and is experimental now, so it's inequitable to pay for only prescription contraception. Would they have to pay for condoms, too? How many a month would the men be entitled to, and on what basis do they make that judgement? Suppose a woman can't take the pill because of the side effects. Why discriminate against her? Should she be entitled to gel and female condoms, too? How much/how many? All of that is only a matter of time once you get the federal government involved, under the pretense of promoting 'equality', and could be a very expensive proposition for payers. More expensive even for those who are receiving their pills through their insurance coverage. This 'cure', would probably be worse than the problem. Just my thoughts...I could be wrong.

Would insurance companies benefit in the long run from covering reversible contraception? Obviously, they would benefit if they had fewer pregnancies to pay for. However, if that were really the case, they would. Most likely, they've done a careful calculation and concluded that people who would use it already are...responsible women fork out the 16 dollars a month for birth control. They'd prefer for those women to pay for their own birth control rather than raise the fees for everyone to pay it. Not equitable, but pragmatic. Perhaps there is a better, non-federal solution to this problem. If twenty states have come around, I expect the others will follow soon.

Lesly

Yes it is, it's called erectile disfunction. The men cannot naturally hold an erection long enough to penetrate their lover, so science helps them out. I never said Viagra had anything to do with procreation.


Yes, if there is an actual ailment it should be prescribed, but there are other ways to treat acne then BCPs. There are also negative side effects to BCPs like higher cancer rates, moodiness, and there is a problem with being on it for extend periods of time but I forgot what my girls Ob/Gyn told her.



I once read somewhere that the reason Viagra is so expensive is because it is a relatively new drug and the producers must pay royalties to patent holders, so give it a few more years and the price will come down. As for birth control pills, if you start handing it out for free more and more people will request them in addition to all of the people who currently pay for theirs.

Mrs. P

Yes, we do have preventative medicine to limit diseases, but surely pregnancy cannot be considered a disease. How much preventative should we cover? Asprin therapy, multi vitamins, where do you draw the line. Cyan said it herself "They cover physicals in order to catch problems in their early stages."


Yes, I think so because without it they cannot have sex, without BC pills the person can still have sex.

In that case, Catholic priests are the sickest people on the planet. Obviously, any man who has to live without sex is sick (according to your logic).



If Rev is suggesting that women (who do not wish to have children) should refrain from sexual activity or else pay for their own medicine, men should do the same. Because if the well-being of the man depends on his ability to have sex, the same must be true for the woman's well-being. Surely Rev isn't setting a double standard based on some flimsy stereotype that men "need it".


You'd rather pay for the cost of unwanted children then the cost of preventative contraception?


This argument is the flimsiest I've seen yet.
url here
There are many alternative ways to treat erectile disfunction. Actually, medication is one of the last resorts. There are also side effects to Viagra. Should these be a reason for insurance companies not to cover Viagra? According to you, yes. Or maybe only if Viagra was for a woman. Or maybe only if Viagra was for someone of a different morality standard than you.


Why would a man need to penetrate his lover? For his own pleasure? If you don't believe viagra is prescribed only for procreation, why should science help a man have sex for pleasure, but not help a woman achieve the same goal? What if a woman wants to have sex, but doesn't want a child? That woman should pay for protection, or else be celibate? Again - why the double standard? You'll agree insurance companies should help people have children, but they shouldn't help people manage their families by refraining from having children? This sounds a bit like religious bias to me. There's no reason to give one person the right to reproduce - to encourage his or her reproductive freedom if you aren't going to equally support the reproductive freedom of his/her neighbor. Reproductive freedom includes the right to have children, or to not have children.

Excuse me my point might have came off wrong, without Viagra these men cannot physically have sex. The lack of sex doesn't make them sick, the inability to do so is the ailment.


Yes thats exactly what I suggest. Actually I suggest that we leave it up to the insurance companies to run the own companies, and not pander to everyone looking for a hand out at the cost of everyone in the plan.


No, the cost of the insurance will increase due to the sheer number of people that will sign up, and there will probably be an increase in treatment of STD's and cancer as well.


There is also other ways to prevent pregnancies, like condoms. Whats your point? Mine was that BCP's also has it's negative side effects besides helping with acne.


Wow, now you accuse me of being sexist. Add that to the list of Anti-semitic homophobic bigot. Why do always insist on name calling every time someone disagrees with you? (My lady used to be very confrontational to, then she switch to Ortho Tricyclen Lo )And for the record I support all of the female fertility drug, the ones that deals with vaginal dryness and chemical imbalances.


Because I agree with Cyan that a healthy sex life is important. I'm pretty sure that a heterosexual women (and Homosexual man) enjoys the penetration of an erect penis just as much as the owner of said penis, thats what makes sex healthy. I fail to see how a women on birth control pills has more pleasure in sex then one that that doesn't.

Yep, and why do you always assume that the women pays for the birth control? How many women do you see buying condoms? There is no double standard. If men want to have sex without having children then I think it's up to them to pay for the condoms, and help pay for birth control in a monogamous relationship.

Actually, I never said anything about the fertilization issue, but I do agree with it being funded because they have an ailment that might prevent them from conceiving a child. Since when is being too fertile and having a normal menstrual cycle an ailment? I'll add religious to the list, by the way I'm a non-practicing Hindu maybe even secular.

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Apr 29 2004, 12:03 PM]
[quote]In that case, Catholic priests are the sickest people on the planet. Obviously, any man who has to live without sex is sick (according to your logic). [/quote]
Excuse me my point might have came off wrong, without Viagra these men cannot physically have sex. The lack of sex doesn't make them sick, the inability to do so is the ailment.
[/quote]
Without birth control pills, I cannot physically have sex. I do not trust condoms, as many I have used have broken. So my options, if I do not want children - are to remain abstinent or to find an insurance company who will pay for my pills. Luckily my company won't deal with an insurance company that unfairly taxes women. So I don't have to worry about it.

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Apr 29 2004, 12:03 PM]
[quote]If Rev is suggesting that women (who do not wish to have children) should refrain from sexual activity or else pay for their own medicine, men should do the same. Because if the well-being of the man depends on his ability to have sex, the same must be true for the woman's well-being. [/quote]
Yes thats exactly what I suggest.
[/quote]
You suggest that women should refrain from sexual activity if they do not want children? Or you suggest that a woman's well-being depends on a healthy sex life, same as men?

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Apr 29 2004, 12:03 PM]
Actually I suggest that we leave it up to the insurance companies to run the own companies, and not pander to everyone looking for a hand out at the cost of everyone in the plan.
[/quote]
You're right. Luckily my insurance plan is one of the largest in the nation, and it pays for birth control. Luckily those who don't will be losing customers quickly and raising your prices as a result.

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Apr 29 2004, 12:03 PM]
[quote]You'd rather pay for the cost of unwanted children then the cost of preventative contraception?[/quote]
No, the cost of the insurance will increase due to the sheer number of people that will sign up, and there will probably be an increase in treatment of STD's and cancer as well.
[/quote]
Apparently my company has figured out a way to make coverage profitable for them. Hopefully your company will stay afloat with all the conservatives in this country - surely they'll be fine.

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Apr 29 2004, 12:03 PM]
[quote]There are many alternative ways to treat erectile disfunction. Actually, medication is one of the last resorts. There are also side effects to Viagra. Should these be a reason for insurance companies not to cover Viagra? [/quote]
There is also other ways to prevent pregnancies, like condoms. Whats your point? Mine was that BCP's also has it's negative side effects besides helping with acne.
[/quote]
My argument is that if you claim that just because there are other ways to prevent pregnancies, a very effective way should be disincluded. If that is your argument, than viagra should also be disinluded because there are other ways to treat erectile disfunction. If you are claiming that BCP should be disincluded because they have negative side effects, then you would also agree that viagra should be disincluded because it has negative side effects. Double standard.

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Apr 29 2004, 12:03 PM]
[quote]According to you, yes. Or maybe only if Viagra was for a woman. Or maybe only if Viagra was for someone of a different morality standard than you. [/quote]
Wow, now you accuse me of being sexist. Add that to the list of Anti-semitic homophobic bigot. Why do always insist on name calling every time someone disagrees with you? (My lady used to be very confrontational to, then she switch to Ortho Tricyclen Lo )And for the record I support all of the female fertility drug, the ones that deals with vaginal dryness and chemical imbalances.
[/quote]
No one is name calling. You are not able to defend your support of insurance companies paying for viagra and not birth control. I have to wonder at your true bias. You are suggesting that families should be helped to have children, but not helped to manage their families through contraception. Is there a reason you feel that families should have societal blessings to procreate but not have societal blessings to choose NOT to procreate? Essentially, that's what insurance companies are doing - giving societal blessings to medical ethics. Your comment about hormones is a bit immature. You should focus on sharpening your argument instead of trying to be witty with insults.

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Apr 29 2004, 12:03 PM]
[quote] Why would a man need to penetrate his lover? For his own pleasure? If you don't believe viagra is prescribed only for procreation, why should science help a man have sex for pleasure, but not help a woman achieve the same goal? [/quote]
Because I agree with Cyan that a healthy sex life is important. I'm pretty sure that a heterosexual women (and Homosexual man) enjoys the penetration of an erect penis just as much as the owner of said penis, thats what makes sex healthy. I fail to see how a women on birth control pills has more pleasure in sex then one that that doesn't.
[/quote]
Sex is not healthy or enjoyable for a woman who is worried about unwantingly becoming pregnant. A woman on birth control has an ease of mind, and much more sexual liberty in the actual act, than a woman trying to trust a very fragile rubber covering.

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Apr 29 2004, 12:03 PM]
[quote]What if a woman wants to have sex, but doesn't want a child? That woman should pay for protection, or else be celibate? Again - why the double standard?[/quote]
Yep, and why do you always assume that the women pays for the birth control?
[/quote]
If a woman wants the most effective method of birth control - birth control pills, she must pay for them herself. In rare circumstances (long term monogamous relationships) the man might assume the costs of the medication, but the woman assumes all the responsibility of getting the prescription, filling the prescription, and remembering to take the pill.

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Apr 29 2004, 12:03 PM]
How many women do you see buying condoms?
[/quote]
Plenty of my friends buy condoms. I tell them to get on BC as soon as they can. Condoms are less effective than birth control pills. I do not like to use inferior methods.

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Apr 29 2004, 12:03 PM]
There is no double standard. If men want to have sex without having children then I think it's up to them to pay for the condoms, and help pay for birth control in a monogamous relationship.
[/quote]
Not everyone in this world enjoys having sex in monogamous relationships. Obviously not all men enjoy monogamous relationships. And guess what? Not all females do either.

[quote=Rev_DelFuego,Apr 29 2004, 12:03 PM]
[quote]You'll agree insurance companies should help people have children, but they shouldn't help people manage their families by refraining from having children? This sounds a bit like religious bias to me.[/quote]
Actually, I never said anything about the fertilization issue, but I do agree with it being funded because they have an ailment that might prevent them from conceiving a child.
[/quote]
Conceiving a child is not the only objective of health insurance. Raising children that will be productive to this society is a worthy goal. A good number of unwanted children become ailments to society. Welfare is an ailment of society. Poverty is an ailment to society. These are both ailments caused primarily by the burden of raising unplanned children. Insurance companies need to take some societal responsibility and step up - stop setting double standards, and take a look at their bottom line, and society's bottom line. Most of them have already, that's why my insurance company pays for contraception. The rest will come around soon.

The price of birth control pills is a little over 50 cents a day. That's cheaper than a diet coke from a vending machine. They are A LOT cheaper than condoms, which cost about a dollar each (if memory serves, since it has been a while). Are you serious about this inability to pay for them without insurance coverage?

Let's see if emphasis will make a distinction clear: "Viagra is not only prescribed with treating an 'ailment' in mind."

Female Viagra will make it possible for women to enjoy sex. Viagra recently made it possible for men to enjoy sex again. Hormone contraceptives made it possible for both sexes to enjoy sex for decades—unless you are not allergic to latex products and prefer the smell and decreased stimulation of condoms. I fail to see how the insurance approach to pleasure tipping in favor of men with the perception that helping men enjoy sex is a noble pursuit while applying a different standard to women is equitable.



Should we support all treatments and medications that promote a healthy sex life or scrap them? Perhaps someday Viagra may have the multitasking benefits the pill enjoys. In the meantime by your admission above Viagra should be taken off coverage because there are other forms of treatments and meds available for erectile dysfunction.



There are proven fatal side effects of Viagra use, yet I don't think it's my place to "intervene" on behalf of men and ask insurance companies to drop coverage.

The claim that prolonged use of BCPs suggest an increased risk of cancer is as inconclusive as the claim that the pill can prevent other forms of cancer:







Viagra is expensive because it's a relatively new concept... and men, along with insurance companies, are willing to pay more for it.

Say a month supply of Viagra is 10 pills, or 30 pills for $350. Ortho-Tri-Cyclen, the first FDA approved BCP to treat acne, costs $180 for a three month supply. Both meds are relatively new, relatively innovative, but neither are one-of-a-kind and neither of them are the only options available to men and women.



As far as I can tell the cost won't go up:



I can't understand why anyone would justify blocking measures that could reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and resulting abortions. It's also odd that you suggest pressure to sign up for health insurance would increase the overall cost since, according to my company's HR manager, my state's Blue Cross/Blue Shield can't turn profits on static employer contribution amounts because there aren't enough people signing up for insurance to cover the overall cost of the plans they offer in the first place.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that there is always an option to pay for them yourself. It's not an option that I'm serious about in this day and age, where one could sue an insurance company for discrimination now that they cover viagra. Insurance companies know it. They also know that it's a matter of time before some judge will rule against them. Oh, wait - actually, it's already happened.

But of course a woman always has the option of buying them herself, even though your figure of 50 cents a day is a bit low. Sure, it might cost drug companies only 50 cents a day to produce the pills, but unless you want to settle for a clinic as your obgyn or unless you are a student at a university - you can't get them that cheap.

edited: to add link

I believe you when you say that you have broken a condom, I have done so myself. I have always known when it has broken though, and have always stopped to replace it.
I suggest that if you do nt want to risk pregnancy then abstain from sex or pay for it yourself. Look at smokers, they pay excessive taxes because of their choice of lifestyle why is $25 ( at Planned Parenthood) a month too much ask for your choice of lifestyle. The reason why your insurer offers birth control is because they probably raised the fee to accommodate these medications, so it can seem more unrestrictive. My rates for Cigna healthcare HMO, which didn't offer it was cheaper the BCBS that my lovely lady had. Either way that is probably why BCBS can't find enough people to fund their plan, because all of the optional things it covers drives up the price, nothing is for free, your just making everyone else help you pay for it. Though there are different factors to include like the size of my company and such.


To be quick and clear, yes I support the people with an actual medical problem that impedes them from having sex and reproducing to be able to seek help at the cost of their medical insurer.

As for the name calling, you were insinuating that I was sexist by saying I would change my mind if Viagra were for women, and then outright called me religious later. How's that not name calling? As for ortho Tricyclen Lo I was being serious, but what I should have said was over passionate and moody. After my girl friend started birth control she would be too scared to watch horror movies, would get flustered over little details, and couldn't hold a heated discussion without it getting personal. After she switch we now enjoy Block Buster Nights, actually discuss things rather then her just ranting and getting angry when your making a point and you don't allow her to interrupt you, and drink without coasters. I haven't quoted Tommy Chongs "MELLLOOOOOW" since she has started. I think Ortho tricyclen Lo could make this world a better place. I say this because my girl before she started BCPs was pretty much pretty tough, she was extremely rational, only slightly emotional, and not scared of anything. I always teased by telling her she ain't a southern Belle but more of an Annie Oakley. Messing with her hormones turned her into something that she wasn't, so why mess with something if it ain't broke, even so why should I and the other people in the plan have to pay for it.


How does Viagra help those that do not have medical problems like not being able to hold an erection and vaginal dryness and what not?

Well, obviously most people do support this. But part of being a healthy female is having a sex life beyond the purpose of procreation.


There was definitely no name calling. There was questioning of position. I asked you specific questions about how you can have the stance that you have. You didn't answer them. The exact quote:

It sounds like religious bias, because I have heard no logical reason why a man NEEDS to have an erection, where a woman doesn't NEED to have sex without worrying about children. If you claim that a man needs viagra to have children, why is that a more valid reason for coverage than a woman needing bc to not have children? Having children is more valid of a lifestyle than not having children? This sounds religiously biased to me.


It sounded like you were insinuating just because I believe that women should have equal rights that I'm moody or PMSing. If that's not what you were insinuating, then spare us the diatribe about OroTricyclen-Lo. I know what it does.


Why should me and other people have to pay for men to have an erection for the sake of procreation if the other people in the plan are not willing to pay for medicine for me to prevent procreation? Why should me and other people have to pay for men to have an erection for the sake of pleasure if the other people in the plan are not willing to pay for medicine for me to have sex for the sake of pleasure?


Like I said, women cannot enjoy sex when they're worrying about getting pregnant. Vaginal dryness can be solved with a little bit of baby oil. This whole argument is so arbitrary it's saddening. I know you're a smart guy. If you really believe that this isn't an issue of inequal medical care, I'm just really saddened.

Is it right for insurance companies to cover prescriptions such as Viagra but to deny coverage for reversible contraception?
No, it isn't. The health conditions that can be treated by Viagra are no less valid than those that can be prevented/treated by BCP's or reversible contraception.

Take the argument a step further. A friend of mine, due to the complications of an auto-accident, is no longer able to sustain a pregancy should one occur. Should she be told, like the male with ED, that she should refrain from sex? Should she be forced to rely on the male to provide it?

Is the EPICC act a good idea?
Conceptually, yes but given that the details are unavailable atm I'll reserve judgement.

Would insurance companies benefit in the long run from covering reversible contraception?
There is an incredibly compelling social interest and obvious benefit to insurance companies to control the number of unplanned births(and related cost of pregnancy) and abortions at the nominal cost of reversible contraception. Ironically, I think an actuarial analysis would probably make that case even more compelling.

Now let me address the Rev's arguments:
As has already been pointed out, the cancer link it inconclusive. And there are suspected cancer benefits as well so this argument is moot. As for the STD, I'm guessing your conclusion rests on the premise that the availability of contraception would promote having sex. This was the same (false) argument used against the morning-after pill. This study indicates otherwise. Condoms in schools evidently doesn't either. So exactly where does your conclusion come from?

Being male Rev, I'll permit you the inability to understand what an excessively painful menstrual cycle can be like. Being male myself I guess I'm willing to empathize a little more perhaps with the advantage that I've had 2 experiences near it. One from my ex-wife who used BCP's to help control hers and the unfortunate month they switched her to a new form that did nothing to help. The pain, for her, was crippling. I suspect far more so than the emotional distress of ED. Yet, BOTH are clinical ailments. The other experience I won't go into detail but I experienced pain at levels that both my doctor and nurses confirmed was the closest a male can get to giving birth.

Either way I think its silly that we have a double standard in this area.

Doc

Perspective
Yes, being a woman mean having a sexual life beyond procreation, I'm not arguing with that. If you have a problem preventing you from enjoying sex I will be glad pitch in to the health care plan to help you. If viagra for women was being denied to women then I would be all up in arms for equality too. Though what you are requiring the government to do is pay for an optional treatment, on par with plastic surgery, because you dislike condoms, abstinence, and other forms of birth control. If your lifestyle dictates that you should be on birth control then it should be from your pocket not the community, just as it is with other birth control like condoms, ...... I'll even pitch in to pay for the additional treatment if your pap smears come back positive and and your now have to get one done every three months instead of a year, and the cervical examination. Would you be willing to pay the additional cost related to me smoking, it's part of my lifestyle? Thats inequality.
I'm not suggesting you pay for the men and women on Viagra so that they can procreate, but to help their medical problem. How can you have good sex without an erection? Can you have good sex with a condom, female condom, diagphram, even a toy ..... Yes.

Sorry if my posts seem arbitrary, work keeps interrupting my posting time and I do not have too much time to research, edit, establish a good flow, and address every point.

Doc
My chain of thought is that if the female is on birth control it would take away the main motive in wearing a condom, pregnancy. You can't tell me you never heard "don't worry I'm on the pill" before. Condoms are the only way to prevent diseases, so without them STDs would travel more rapidly.

You are requiring the government to pay for optional treatment, on par with plastic surgery, because you dislike stress reduction, exercise, and other forms of erectile disfunction treatment.


If your lifestyle dictates that you have erections then it should be from your own pocket not the community. If you want to have children, then the government should issue you one pill at a time until that purpose is served, and then no more until you want to have children again. If your lifestyle dictates that you want to have sex without the purpose of having children, then you should pay for the viagra yourself. That is the only way to make what you are suggesting fair.


So if a man doesn't want to have children, his insurance company shouldn't pay for his viagra. The only reason a man should be allowed to be prescribed viagra is to have children. Because otherwise, why should we pay for him to have erections as often as he pleases? Most normal men can't have erections whenever they please. A woman not wanting to have children is not a health burden on society like smoking is. Arguably, more erections mean more unwanted pregnancies - which cost all of us more in welfare and poverty-produced crime. If your lifestyle dictates that you want to do something that is going to cost all of us down the line - for lung cancer treatments, then the cost effective thing to do is not support your bad habit to begin with. A woman not wanting to have children is cheaper for everyone in the long run. If women had as many children as they possibly could over their 80 year lifespan, the baby boomer generation would look like a small class compared to the result. More erections just boosts this number. If social security isn't broke by then, it would surely break. I'd say a woman's birth control is less of a burden on society then male erection drugs. Go figure.


That's not for you to say. I can't have good sex without birth control pills. I do not trust condoms. You can't presume to know what is "good sex" to every person.


The timing of your posts are not arbitrary - the arguments are.



Evidence please.

I just had to add my 2 cents here. The best expression of my opinion is that of a woman who wrote: "It's so crazy that men can get free drugs to make their equipment bolt upright and hit a target but when it comes to the target, it's tough beans."

It just doesn't make sense to me that a pill whose only purpose is to make a penis erect is covered by insurance and BC is not. Do we expect women to bear children continously for 20 years? Of course not....at least I would hope not!

Guys, I don't understand why you wouldn't be for BC coverage. Do you want to go back to the days when the best birth control method was an aspirin firmly gripped between the knees? What good would Viagra do then?

Rev, you can't seriously be comparing a human's sexual drive to the choice to start smoking and the subsequent addiction. The overwhelming majority of humanity has a strong sex drive - that's how it has to be, or we'd die out.

As for bringing condoms into the debate, condoms are not as effective as pills in preventing pregnancy. Period. There are too many things that can go wrong with condoms - breaking, slipping off, etc. We're not talking about preventing STDs, we're talking about insurance companies helping men be able to have sex with a woman without helping the woman be able to protect herself against pregnancy from that copulation. This is just begging for more unwanted children.

So what if there are other methods of birth control available? Something like the chance of a pregnancy shouldn't be left up to lesser methods of birth control. For many women - very understandably - the only option they'll accept is the best.

Personally, I take Necon to help with severe cramps that I've always had during my cycle since I started 8 years ago, but only recently has my mother allowed me to take prescription medication for it. I'm not talking about "give me some Tylenol" cramps, I'm talking "mom come pick me up from school" cramps. So please remember there are valid medical conditions to prescribe birth-control for.l

No I don't. I encourage and actively participate in all those things without suffering from ED. I also expect anyone else who suffers from it to attempt to do the same before using viagra as a crutch and therefore draining the system. Please explain to me how treating a disorder is optional? Just because you want it to fit your argument.
Your whole second paragraph is just rambling, since you just decide to reverse what I wrote and didn't read it to see if it actually made sense. If you deny people of treatment of their disorder, which only a few people suffer from, they will not be able to have sex at all. If we deny you treatment of your perceived disorder of being fertile we deny you of your sense of security? At the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars I would rather pay for your therapy then the cost of millions on birth control. Before you say a hundred million dollars is too much how much would it take to get there. $100000000/$25=4M people on birth control.


Well it's basic health class stuff. The majority of STD's transfer through the exchange of bodily fluids. Sponges, the birth control pill, patches and everything that lets you get flesh on flesh is risking STDs. If you want evidence go to WebMD and type in AIDS. I'm not going to do your ninth grade homework for you. Although condoms might not stop the spread of some diseases, like genital warts, BCPs does not stop a single one.

From Suzy:

Why not, smokers place a burden on the healthcare due to their choices, the same as mandatory birth control would.
Condom may not be as effective as BCPs, but if you doubt it then combine it with withdrawl and it can be just as effective and still protect you from STDs.

Next if you would like to have your insurance to cover BCPs almost every every insurer has a plan that will cover them. Like the BCBS HMO "plus" or a PPO, they cost more but you get what you pay for. If you make insurance companies carry coverage for every whim that a hypochondriac has it will increase the cost of the minimum coverage plans. If you don't think it will, then provide me with a sound business plan which provides a good for free to the masses and still covers its expenses. This will hurt the people who have a spouse that works just to provide the family with health benefits. The abuse of these panderers of the healthcare system will eventually end up as a version of "The Tragedy of the Commons."

Finally, If this bill is to pass each one of you deserves the dozens of emails that you'll receive with "BCPs delivered straight to your door" in the title.

Much has been discussed in this thread concerning equity (and it makes for a very good debate). Fairness and equality are very important issues.

However, I have seen very little addressing the issue of whether or not the costs of covering prescription contraceptives might actually be outweighed by the decrease in costs that would follow a reduction in unwanted pregnancies. Temporarily putting the (important) issue of equality aside, if insurance companies would save more by covering contraceptive prescriptions in the first place, it seems like this could be a win-win scenario for everyone, regardless of which side of the issue you come down on.

A 1998 AGI study predicted that the cost to employers to add coverage for prescription contraceptives would result in an overall premium increase of $1.43 per employee per month. In other words, adding prescription coverage for women who would use it to get birth control would incur a cost for everyone in the plan of about $17 per year.

However, it turns out that the study did not include any adjustment for the costs incurred by unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies result in increased health care costs; you have the hospital delivery, and post-birth care for the newborn and the mother, which is all covered by the health insurance plan.

Additionally, employers realize an additional loss from the absence of the mother in the work force. Maternity leave is a good thing for healthy babies and mothers (and by extension, fathers and siblings too) but from a cost-analysis perspective, its simply a losing scenario for the employer.

It is hard to come up with precise research data but weighing the above factors on a simple common-sense approach leads me to believe that it must be more expensive for employers to not cover prescription contraceptives for women that it would be to cover them and avoid the financial costs that result down the line from unwanted pregnancies. I did find one study from the Washington Businesss Group on Health that estimated that failing to provide contraceptive coverage costs employers at least 15% more than providing prescription coverage.

Perhaps one might argue that because 50% of employer insurance plans currently do not cover prescription contraceptives that there must be some financial reason why it is not cost effective (even if the health insurance costs of unwanted pregnancies are factored in), and that de facto it is a dead issue.

However, this doesn't explain why the other 50% of employer insurance plans do provide coverage. The same logic applied in the preceding paragraph would conclude that providing prescription coverage to prevent increased costs in unwanted pregnancies is financially sound, de facto.

After weighing the possibilities, is there anyone here who specifically believes that the net costs of providing coverage for contraception prescriptions outweighs the net savings incurred by avoiding unwanted pregnancy health insurance costs be willing to take up that specific issue and post their thoughts? I will not criticize you for having your opinion; I just want to hear someone flesh out their rationale on the issue in terms of net costs and savings.

*tentatively raising one lonely hand*

I really doubt that insurance companies have failed to do an actuarial analysis on this. Do women forego birth control because the health insurance doesn't pay for their pills? Of all the unwanted pregnancy cases I've known, not a single one resulted from the inability to pay for the contraception. That isn't to say I think the companies shouldn't pay for them...I would just prefer that the federal government stay out of it.

I think that most health insurance covers the pill when it's used for medicinal reasons. At least, I was covered on my parent's policy when I was in highschool (I had Suzy's problem ). Craps can be debilitating, and I would lie on the floor all night in the bathroom because I couldn't move, or even crawl to the bed. Hang in there, Suzy! It stopped when I turned 21, so I hope it will for you.

That is a very good counterpoint and I'm at a loss as to how one would address that. If a clear majority of women do pay for contraceptive prescriptions regardless of whether or not they are covered by health insurance plans, it defeats the hopes for a simple cost-benefit analysis argument.

I guess a proponent of that argument would need convincing statistical research evidence showing that the number of women who actually fall into the margin of being unable to afford contraception while at the same time having an employer health insurance plan that will later provide insurance benefits for an unwanted pregnancy.

The text of the pending congressional bill does claim findings that 1) "the lack of contraceptive coverage in health insurance places many effective forms of contraceptives beyond the financial reach of many women, leading to unintended pregnancies," and 2) the "Institute of Medicine Committee on Unintended Pregnancy recommended that financial barriers to contraception be reduced by increasing the proportion of all health insurance policies that cover contraceptive services and supplies" (see Section 2, Findings 11 & 12)... however, the text does not back any of that up with cited research and does not lay out the statistical basis of the findings. They really should make the data more public if they want to provide more support for the argument.

Regardless, thanks for taking the time to respond.

You're saying that the last resort medicine to treat an ailment for men should be paid for by insurance companies. You're saying that the last resort medicine to treat an ailment in women should not be paid for by insurance companies. Double standard. Men who try exercise, stress reduction, etc and still have ED, their insurance companies pay for their viagra. Women who get severe mentrual cramps try tylenol, they try hot water bottles. They try home remedies. For some women, the only way to stop the cramps is with hormonal treatment - birth control pills. Insurance should cover them.


Ok, since you can't see the flaw in your argument I'll have to do your ninth grade homework and point it out for you. Your statement:
Condoms are the only way to prevent diseases, so without them STDs would travel more rapidly.
You cannot assume that women who use birth control don't also use condoms. You cannot assume that just because insurance companies pay for birth control that it will encourage people to use condoms less. You cannot assume that condoms are the only way to prevent disease, because they aren't. We could go on for days. So, in actuality - your argument that insurance-paid birth control = more STDs is completely unfounded. Unless, of course, you'd like to do what I asked and present EVIDENCE to support your insinuation.


Well, if you think that stress reduction is less effective than viagra, combine it with an active lifestyle and it can be just as effective as viagra and still save the rest of us money. You would expect to receive the best possible treatment for your problem, women expect the same.



Women obviously will pay for their own birth control if the insurance companies won't. Life/abortion is too big a risk to just go without BC. This taints any studies that would show untainted results as to the cost to insurance companies of unplanned pregnancies. But just because women take the moral high ground doesn't mean that insurance companies are not still in the wrong for forcing us into paying for BC. We are forced into it, because the alternative is to have abortions or to bring children into non-ideal family situations. The insurance companies are taking advantage and it's about time they stopped. Like was stated earlier, if the issue was a men's health issue, male birth control would have been covered decades ago. I agree that it shouldn't take a federal mandate, but if that's what it takes at this point - I'm all for it.

I agree with this, if the female has severe problem with her period then she should be put on birth control. But to provide it on the basis of birth control alone is excessive. I also don't support giving people Viagra if they do not have ED of some other type of sexual dysfunction, because it is a waste of the system.


The CDC says people 15-19 in 1988 42.7% used the pill 31.3% used condoms and only 3.3% used dual methods. (page 34)


Your right condoms aren't the only method, abstinence is the other. Show me one study where BCP effectively stopped any STD.



Your right, and still think the should try that before taking drugs to solve their problem. Drugs and surgery should be a last resort because of the side effects and complications. The expenses of these also place a burden on the health care system. Now if you elect to pay for the additional coverage plans, like BCBS plus, then by all means get what you paid for, but don't selfishly jack up the prices for the basic plans so that the people with minimum coverage cannot afford it by including all the unnecessary things you perceive to be mandatory healthcare.

15-19 year olds in 1988 are hardly a representative of the population of the insurance-covered.



This is not the point. Viagra does not pre-require it's user to prevent STDs. If viagra were refused to patients because erect penises transmit STDs, then I could understand refusing women birth control based on some assumed fact that birth control indirectly transmits STDs. Double standards are rife in your arguments.


The people with minimum coverage are the ones who can't afford to buy BC on their own, and these women are the ones who really need the coverage. It's not unnecessary. Women cannot have children for their entire lifespan. It's a simple fact. Women's health should be covered as equally as men's. It's the least society can do to thank women for shouldering the burden of childbirth.

Well take a look at the figures from 1995 that are right next to it, it still says that only 8.4 percent uses dual methods. Or take a look at this report from the CDC. If you at the figure from the 20-34 the figures show that 26.3% in that age group use the pill, and only 15.6% use condom. Now under the ideal condition that all 15.6% of those condom users are also on the pill, which is highly unlikely, that leaves us to believe that atleast 1/3 of the people on the pill, which peaked between the ages 20-34, are open to STDs.


Viagra doesn't give any reason to stop practicing safe sex. I don't even see how you can compare Viagra which is used to treat a disorder, to BCP which as you plan to administer as a commodity.


So let me get this straight, you plan to drive up the costs of an already steeply priced healthcare plan, to point where they can't afford the basic plan, so that they can have free birth control pills. Wait a minute it's still not free if they can't afford the health plan, maybe if they drop one of their dependents it'll work.

Neither does BC.


And I suppose the insurance company's bottom line is blameless in all of this. Please. Get real. If people can't afford health insurance, it's because the insurance companies are making too much profit - or maybe because of insurance fraud. If you really want to make insurance affordable, there are plenty of logical ways to cut costs. Denying women meds that they NEED is not a logical way to cut costs. Men at age 60+ do not need to reproduce, they won't live long enough to raise their children. Maybe let's deny those guys viagra in order to cut costs. Making women a scapegoat in all of this is ludicrous.

There is no reason to deny women coverage for birth control.

Women getting pregnant repeatedly is very bad for a woman's health. Not to mention there are a lot of health risks and the possibility of death involved in pregnancy.

Perhaps erectile disfunction isn't so much of a disfunction. Maybe it's one of mother nature's ways of decreasing the population, or preventing women from having more pregnancies than is healthy or that could threaten a woman's life. Why should we mess with that and have to pay for those trying to thwart mother nature? This is the same kind of logic that is used by people who believe that BCPs shouldn't be covered because pregnancy is "natural"

Women don't necessarily need an erect male organ for sexual pleasure, so viagra is a man's benefit. BCPs are a benefit to everyone: less children born unwanted, more born into homes that are ready for them; less child support the man needs to worry about; preserves the health and wellbeing of women, and also keeps them from slipping into poverty that a child might bring with it.

While in theory I agree with Cyan that a healthy sex life is important, I am unsure if insurance should be paying for it unless it is willing to pay for both men and women to have a heathy sex life. It's not a healthy sex life for a woman to have repeated pregnancies.