Should health plans cover contraception?
This is a hot button issue in the US now, and I know personally that my insurance plan (QIC) doesn't cover contraception (unfortunately, because it isn't cheap). Also, at least in the UAE, vasectomies, hysterectomies and tubal ligations are illegal (unless approved by the Ministry of Health)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-calls-georgetown-law-studen...
Framing the issue squarely as a fight for women’s rights, Obama called Sandra Fluke to express solidarity after she was vilified by conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh for her public support of the administration’s health-care rule. The rule requires employers to provide free contraception to women as part of their health insurance coverage.
Georgetown Law Center student Sandra Fluke on Thursday testified before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee during a mock hearing on women's health and contraception. (Feb. 23)
In an interview with The Washington Post, Fluke said Obama was concerned about her in the face of what he called Limbaugh’s “very inappropriate” remarks. “He expressed concern for me personally,” she said. “I assured him I was doing okay despite the personal attacks.”
Fluke said she viewed the Limbaugh remarks, and others like them, as an assault on women’s rights. “I realized very quickly what this was — an attempt to silence me and to silence all women,” she said.
Obama’s phone call roiled a debate that had been raging for weeks and which came to a head Thursday on Capitol Hill when the Senate defeated a bill intended to stymie the administration’s regulatory approach to the issue.
Republicans accused the administration of waging a war on religious freedom for compelling some institutions to make contraception available as part of their health-care coverage.
Although churches and other houses of worship were exempt, the rule sparked an intensive debate, which caused the administration to partially retreat.
Democrats fought back against Republicans’ characterization of the contraceptive rule. The Obama call to Fluke was another effort to turn the tables by appealing to women, many of whom see the fight as one about control over their health and bodies.
Limbaugh had referred to Fluke as a “slut” and prostitute after she testified at a forum hosted by congressional Democrats in support of the rule. Some Republicans quickly distanced themselves from Limbaugh, and at least two commercial sponsors ended their association with his radio show.
**********************************************************
So is Fluke, and other woman who want to control their own fertility (and men who want vasectomies in the ME) "sluts" or should human beings have the right to decide when they become parents?
Birth control has various uses. not just for having sex. i suffer from pcos which is a hormone condition. and i was taking birth control pills to keep my periods regular. never had sex in my life. so why shouldn't insurance cover that?
and it cost the US more money to take care of unwanted children then it is to have their insurance cover birth control for women.
To OP: private insurance is PRIVATE. No one is forced to take it. So long as the procedure or medicine in legal then OK for private insurance to cover it or not--between the seller and the buyer to negotiate.
more to do, so better make babies and be religious. Follow the command.... Go out and multiply!
The government should still fund for free contraception, not for serial baby makers on the dole!
Sandra Fluke noble purpose of preventing ovarian cysts... truly noble. But what causes ovarian cysts? Is it getting pregnant causes one? Or is it using contraception prone to getting an ovarian cysts?
@JJJ... thanks for the insights. One more question from an inquisitive mind... How can we say that the program is/was successful when there are high statistic of unwanted teenage pregnancy? It basically implies that to have population control, giving free contraception to adults cannot somehow attain the objective.
Georgetown University is a Jesuit University, they follow the Catholic Doctrine of no contraception for the purpose of inhibiting procreation. They also pay about 80% (just a guess, but it seems about right) of the cost of healthcare coverage from an insurance complany while the insuree payes the remainder on a monthly basis. That cost is there whether the insurance is used or not. The US Federal Government is mandating that these insurance complanies provide contraception as part of thier coverage, which in turn makes thier policys cost more to the employer, which means that even if its never used, Georgetown University is paying for contraception for any purpose. Sandra Fluke went in front of Congress to advocate this purpose for a more noble purpose of preventing ovarian cysts, I applaud her cause, but belive its not the Feds place.
I was under the impression that this was covered only for cases where the "mental" wellbeing of teh patient was a concern..
Oh, I do!
Mandi
Mandilulur - you mean dirty old men???
Not only does private health care insurance in the US cover the costs of Viagra but also Medicare/Medicaid, meaning that tax-payers directly cover the cost of sex for old men!
Mandi
I would take that view as well fubar. Not only that, but by choosing insurers that don't cover contraception, the employer is vicariously imposing there religious beliefs on others.
Highlander - neither really. It may well be mandated in law that no NHS doctor is allowed to charge for contraception (amongst other free services they have to give), also subsidy implies that the person has to pay something towards the cost and this is free.
It is the choice of the individual whether they wish to take it or not but by and large it is quite successful. Those who cannot afford to pay will make the trip to the Family planning clinic to sort themselves out.
that could not be the case for the Government, because of its subjectivity.
@JJJ... thanks for the education.. and I believe its subsidy and not by law. Am I right?
I tend to agree, Mimi. But others take the view that the government is mandating for its provision. But yet others take the view that the employers (such as Georgetown, a Jesuit College, in the case of Ms Fluke) aren't actually providing contraception - the insurer is.
Or something...
How I long to live in a world as simple as that of the founding fathers...
I would love to live in a world where people were responsible and a small government, hands off, live and let live approach to social policy worked.
Dare to dream.
I'm in favor of providing contraception to women (and men, I hasten to add! both parties must be responsible!!) rather than welfare to mothers, or aborting babies, or running orphanages. (Or in other rarer cases putting women through painful menstruation cycles, or allowing ovarian cysts to grow.)
However, and I don't wish to divert the thread, but the reason I feel Limbaugh tried to make this an issue isn't really because of the contraception issue, but the religious issue. There are some who take the view, understandably, the proposals for contraception coverage run the risk of violating freedom of religion guarantees.
That to me is another issue worth discussing.
I really don't see how contraception coverage violates freedom of religion. After all, the insurance companies can't force people to use contraception anymore than they can force Christian Scientists to get blood transfusions.
Highlander - the UK worked out a long time ago that the cost of a packet of condoms or 2 was a lot cheaper than having to support single mothers who got pregnant because they could not afford contraception and relied on 'free methods' which are not very successful.
For everybody. To curb serial baby making...because if they do make babies while on subsidized contraception, they have to foot the bill themselves.No freebies .
@ MissT and Nomerci... you mean, you do not want your Government to spend to serial baby makers but still you want your Government to spend for contraception? Then just for whom?
I'm a responsible parent and I most certainly need contraception!
Responsible parents don't need contraception? Huh? How so? They supposed to stick it in the ear or what? :/
UK, contraception is free for all, regardless of whether you are UK citizen. Family planning clinics hand out free condoms to whomever asks, no questions asked - stops spread of diseases. pill prescribed by doctor for free, IUD inserted for free, the list goes on.
I would also say that, those who are on Contraception, and fall pregnant without wanting to be, must pay themselves for what ever choice they make .
I suppose Responsible Parents don't need contraception...
Yeah thats right.......I don't see your point @highlander88 :S (am I being blonde again???)
Highlander, I still stick to it being included.Simply because in the end it is cheaper.
What about responsible people who can't afford to pay for contraception?
are in the same boat. They do not want their tax money to support irresponsible individuals just to avoid making unwanted babies. Right Galz? So what's the stand now with contraception? :)
Then taxes that would supposedly "come in" to the coffer of the Government to give more support to the basic needs of the Citizenry will now be reduce? Because taxable income of both the Employer and the Employee will reduce because of additional overhead expenses in the books of accounts. So still, Government has given its share for the payment of the contraception from taxpayers like Wargame...
Missteacher, big fat YES. It is so wrong!
It drives me crazy that people who study and work their b*tt off need to pay for mostly everything (apart from contraception of course), whereas the idle, lazy, serial baby makers get everything they want for hee-haw!!
grrr!!!
Sorry, I think like a Canadian, in that the government provides universal healthcare, and also in my original post I mentioned that this is actually about here as well, as insurance companies in the ME don't cover the cost of contraception and that things like vasectomies and tube tying are actually illegal. We are not just discussing the USA.
"this isn't about the Federal government paying for contraception"
Yet in previous posts in this thread you said,
“All of this could be stopped by the Government or Insurance companies covering the cost of a $300 IUD or an annual subscription of birth control pills.”
“that still doesn't negate the issue that insurance companies and the government should be providing free contraception”
This IS about the Federal Government paying for, or at the very least mandating ANYTHING that has to do with healthcare. Its not thier job.
The government doesn’t pay student medical insurance premiums; the students do.
Nor does the government pay the medical insurance premiums of employees at any of the other employers who will be obligated under the ACA to provide minimum healthcare benefits; the employer and the employee together do.
So passing a law that forces insurance companies to cover the cost of contraception is mollycoddling?
"The whole point of governments is to take care of the people who elect them."
There is a small difference between taking care and mollycoddling.
For private health plans, it should be up to the user to choose a plan which does or doesn't offer contraception according to their personal beliefs. Both plans should be on offer.
No Merci, the ones with jobs and money will end up paying for all the unwanted children sitting on welfare or in state care. A box of pills will be much cheaper in the long run. If I were American I'd be completely in support of "Obamacare" and mandating that insurance companies provide free contraception.
Hell I wish mine did!
then who pays the health insurance providers??? I have agreed to your well grounded points earlier... but definitely not this one!
I have no problem with private health insurance providers paying for it. Thats what my monthly payments and premiums for that service are for. I have no problem with contraception. It has amazing health benefits. I have a problem with the Federal Government mandating coverage "Obamacare".
Hmm, yes. But then it will go like this :The ones with jobs and money will pay for those without.
Of course, now the ones with jobs and money pay for those on welfare....Question is, which is the cheaper option?
we are walking in the same direction MissMi. Subsidize could be the neutral word here... Yes, Government can subsidize, like the ones being cited by MissT in UK. But including it as a Law of the Country to justify spending of the Government on this concern is a another story. If a Couple wants to have a healthy s*x life to preserve their Love for each other... then so be it. And you don't need any Government assurance or insurance to do this, right? So why depend on the Government just to make sure there would be no unwanted child to be born? Responsible Parenthood is the one that should be promoted. And with all due respect MissMi... moral issues are basically long term until Culture adopts to the changes of time.
Also wargames, this isn't about the Federal government paying for contraception, this is about employers requiring insurance companies to pay for it.
Wargame, you do of course realise that it is the health insurance providers who have to pay for the contraception, if it is provided.
Not the government. Your tax dollars aren't buying anyone any condoms or pills.
Do you see the difference?
Then go through the process of amending it.(That is also laid out in the Constitution) Until then, here is an idea.. its not a new one.. There is this other thing called a state government. go ask them.
No sh*t really!?! They've got a thing called the Constitution in the United States! Wow. That is news to me.
Well the Constitution has been changed in the past, why not now.
In the United States we have this thing called the Constitution. It layes out the powers and responsibilities of the Federal Government. Nowhere in this document does it say the anything about education, healthcare..etc. So I say again, it is not the Federal Governments place to take my tax dollars and provide a service that they are not mandated to provide.
Wouldn't making the decision to use contraception be taking care of yourself? The government can't force anyone to use or not use contraception, but at least they can help subsidize it so that everyone can afford to practice responsible parenting and sex. The long term benefits of making contraception available to everyone surely out weighs any short term moral issues?
MissT, yes I understand how it went to that, I just don't want the conversation to stay on teenage pregnancy, as I don't believe that's the main issue.
MissMi... take care. But wouldn't it also be prudent for the Citizens to take care of themselves and not just depend on their Government to take care of them? Pregnancy or contraception is a matter of choice among the 2 consenting individuals (whether teenagers or adults). And if the Government by any chance in its action, tolerates behaviour against responsible parenthood by promoting contraception... then for sure the incoming generation will have the same mindsetting of having an enjoyable s*x life.(disregarding consequences...)
Teenage pregnancy came up because you say @MM...
"an unwanted or neglected child may eventually wreck on society.
All of this could be stopped by the Government or Insurance companies covering the cost of a $300 IUD or an annual subscription of birth control pills."
and I was replying by saying that contraception is free in UK yet there are so many 'unwanted' or 'neglected children' due to teenage or in some case even children having children.
Thus, the problem in the UK is certainly not stopped due to free contraception.
The whole point of governments is to take care of the people who elect them. If you weren't electing them to take care of things like health care, education, military, etc. What's the point in having them in the first place?
Health plans cover the birth, delivery, examinations, etc. So why not the prevention of such things? It's all part and parcel of healthy living. There are lots of health issues associated with pregnancy.
The point. Point one is that the US Federal Government should not be in the healthcare business. Its not mandated in the Constitution. Point #2 is that government provided health insurance or unwanted babies are not the only option.
I would never tell an individual how to live thier life. But I will ask them to stop believing the federal government is supposed to take care of them.
Please bear... just expressing my opinion to MissT's points... However, pregnancy whether adult or teenage is still in the context of contraception. So we are still in your thread topic, I suppose.
Discussed a few days ago ;o)
http://www.qatarliving.com/node/2652820
I believe that they should not. Health plans are "insurance" against an illness. Contraception is not an illness, but a matter of personal choice.
I'm not sure how this got onto teenage pregnancy. This is about contraception, which is used by married couples as well as singles, and the woman insulted by Rush Limbaugh is a college student, so she's not a teenager.
Also, I don't know too many teenagers in the UAE trying to get vasectomies or their tubes tied.
It should be included. But benefits for teenage pregnancy should be eliminated.
it only shows that liberalizing contraception would only promote premarital s*x among the youngs. In our Country now, its been a BIG debate among the Government and the Church considering the morality and monetary involved.
And the question is... Who will these young ones look up to as their example, if the adults themselves could not hold on to their desires? (By clamoring to include contraception as part of health services of the State.)
Control is the keyword, I supposed.
Fubar... I agree with your well grounded points!
Tell me about it MM!! makes me sick!!
The reason teenage pregnancies are so high in the UK might have something to do with the fact that the government gives them a bloody flat when they get knocked up. If someone had told me at 16 that I could get my own place I might have been tempted to get knocked up to.
In the US teen pregnancy is actually at its lowest since the 1940's. However, that still doesn't negate the issue that insurance companies and the government should be providing free contraception.
Contraception is avaliable free in the UK...however the number of teenage pregnancies out of wedlock are horrendous and sky high.
It should be included in health however, for adults to chose when they have children.
If health plans keep providing cover to people who deliberately over eat and get obese, and then subsequently require medical treatment, then I can see no major difference with contraception being provided.
People would be outraged if you suggested a smoker be left to die of lung cancer because he chose to smoke. But should they be? Should we always assume that someone else will always be there to help clean up our mess?
You'd tell married couples to "keep it in their pants" wargame? It's not just unmarried people who have to worry about contraception.
It's not a money issue. What right does the government have over the activities of your bedroom? And the idea that its either government provided contraception or an unwanted child as the only options is just retarded. How about abstinence? How about keeping it in your pants? Don’t go before Congress and say that your contraception bill during law school is $3000 and then get mad when you get attacked for your promiscuity. Bottom line, contraception is a personal issue, and it should be paid for by the person, or its private health insurance provider. Not the government.
rich Country don't have monetary arguments on their state health services. But why are there budgetary arguments in Congress before approving this kind of bill?
Taking this point of yours MissMi...
"...not to mention hundreds of thousands of dollars in raising the child (more if, as an unwanted child, they end up in state care) and the social effect (crime, poverty, etc) an unwanted or neglected child may eventually wreck on society..."
Then i "Fully Agree" with LP... that some humans are not human beings... and they need control!!!
The monetary argument doesn't make sense either Highlander. The monetary result of an unwanted/unplanned child is over ten thousand dollars just for the birth, not to mention hundreds of thousands of dollars in raising the child (more if, as an unwanted child, they end up in state care) and the social effect (crime, poverty, etc) an unwanted or neglected child may eventually wreck on society.
All of this could be stopped by the Government or Insurance companies covering the cost of a $300 IUD or an annual subscription of birth control pills.
rechargeable as well! Hehehe....
Depends on the culture and society you live in.
As far as in the western world, I think it should be included in the cover.
It depends. I don't have any "health plan". I live a healthy life and save hundred thousand dollars by not having a health plan. I decide when I get sick!
Just my opinion.... Basically we all know that there are Religious beliefs that contradicts on this... But at the end of the day, the final decision is in our own self and not by our Religious Leaders, more so our Government. Its our body, its our call!
One reason why there are debates on this issue... is because of the "Money" involve. The State will be spending People's money, and others who believe that it would be much wiser to spend it on other basic needs of the populace. Hence the objection.
Let us see of the objection if a private person gives this for free to any person who wish to do with his own fertility. I bet none to see. :)
So should health plans cover contraception in your opinion LP?
Human Beings have every right to decide how they want to live their lives. But some aren't human beings. They need control.