Does birth control really cost

[nikki2200 4]

You should take your own advice and apply it to football. Wimmens aren't involved, so you obviously have nothing of value to offer on the subject.

 

Why don't you ask gocolts if he agrees with your statement.

[gocolts 300]

Except that the fact that most large insurance companies already cover birth control at a very low co-pay. Kinda throws a wrench in the it's more expensive than getting pregnant theory which doesn't even make any sense using any logic. Just the hospital bill for giving birth is a few thousand dollars.

 

Oh and FYI, a lot of major insurance companies also cover abortions.

Plus, if they start giving birth control for free, less people will use condoms, which could make STDs go through the roof.

[JackARoot 2]

I heard Santorum is willing to pay for "the pill" as long as its the aspirin you're supposed to hold between your knees

[jerryskids 5,433]

Except that the fact that most large insurance companies already cover birth control at a very low co-pay. Kinda throws a wrench in the it's more expensive than getting pregnant theory which doesn't even make any sense using any logic. Just the hospital bill for giving birth is a few thousand dollars.

 

Oh and FYI, a lot of major insurance companies also cover abortions.

 

As I said earlier regarding the testimony, the arguments are all over the place. Is birth control cheap or not? This thread started because of testimony claiming it was prohibitively expensive. People here including yourself claim it is cheaper than the alternative of babies popping out all over the place. I asked why, if that is so, insurance companies don't beg women to take it for free?

 

I'll ask a different way, and I honestly don't know the answer: is the company providing insurance for these law students expressly prohibited from providing free birth control to the students at Georgetown? If not, why wouldn't they?

[nikki2200 4]

As I said earlier regarding the testimony, the arguments are all over the place. Is birth control cheap or not? This thread started because of testimony claiming it was prohibitively expensive. People here including yourself claim it is cheaper than the alternative of babies popping out all over the place. I asked why, if that is so, insurance companies don't beg women to take it for free?

 

I'll ask a different way, and I honestly don't know the answer: is the company providing insurance for these law students expressly prohibited from providing free birth control to the students at Georgetown? If not, why wouldn't they?

 

Without insurance, the pill is pretty expensive. Because I am self-employed, I only have catastrophic health coverage so I pay my own bill and it cost me over $60 a month. I've paid as much as $80. When you have good insurance that covers this the co-pay is extremely low... about $10 IIRC.

 

I'm assuming this whole thing came up because Georgetown is a Catholic institution and their health care plan may not cover birth control due to the Church not wanting to support that coverage. Which is probably why this woman was going to testify in the first place and probably at the root of this whole debacle. I could be wrong, but I'd wager on it.

 

In summary, most major insurance companies already cover this. If you don't have insurance it can be expensive.

[IGotWorms 3,455]

Unless you are a pencil d!ck like Worms.

 

I was gonna write something about how your "wife" seems to like my cack just fine...but then I remembered that no woman would ever date yet alone marry your wretched ass.

[KSB2424 3,087]

As I said earlier regarding the testimony, the arguments are all over the place. Is birth control cheap or not? This thread started because of testimony claiming it was prohibitively expensive.

The reason arguements are all over the place is because this is a non issue to beging with. Therefore there is really nothing to argue about.

 

Most insurance already covers it. The ones that don't do not because of thier own reasons (probably religion). And the gov't already has a safety net they help fund in womens clinics like Planned Parenthood. There is no issue.

 

This Fluke lady could simply either shop for an insurance plan that does cover it, or go to Planned Parenthood. She did neither and is making a big deal about it not because its a real issue, but because of different reasons. Maybe she is just young and thinks she is part of some 'cause'. Maybe she is just a media hound. Whatever the reason, its not because this is a issue at all.

 

That's why this thread is all over the place. It's because there is no meat to it; the issue is all fluff.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The reason arguements are all over the place is because this is a non issue to beging with. Therefore there is really nothing to argue about.

 

Most insurance already covers it. The ones that don't do not because of thier own reasons (probably religion). And the gov't already has a safety net they help fund in womens clinics like Planned Parenthood. There is no issue.

 

This Fluke lady could simply either shop for an insurance plan that does cover it, or go to Planned Parenthood. She did neither and is making a big deal about it not because its a real issue, but because of different reasons. Maybe she is just young and thinks she is part of some 'cause'. Maybe she is just a media hound. Whatever the reason, its not because this is a issue at all.

 

That's why this thread is all over the place. It's because there is no meat to it; the issue is all fluff.

Zero successfully diverted the subject of political debate to this red herring. He did it a little early, and people will see it for what it is......and it is exactly how you described. The problem for Zero is that the only people dense enough to not figure this out are the ones squarely in his camp in the first place. For confirmation of this one need only scan this thread and make a list of the posters who are about how this should be free/Why do Reps want to take away contraception/etc....etc....All dense, all easily fooled, all Obamabots......oh wait, that's triple redundant.

[jerryskids 5,433]

Without insurance, the pill is pretty expensive. Because I am self-employed, I only have catastrophic health coverage so I pay my own bill and it cost me over $60 a month. I've paid as much as $80. When you have good insurance that covers this the co-pay is extremely low... about $10 IIRC.

 

I'm assuming this whole thing came up because Georgetown is a Catholic institution and their health care plan may not cover birth control due to the Church not wanting to support that coverage. Which is probably why this woman was going to testify in the first place and probably at the root of this whole debacle. I could be wrong, but I'd wager on it.

 

In summary, most major insurance companies already cover this. If you don't have insurance it can be expensive.

You are missing my point. I get that it is cheaper for an individual if it is covered by their insurance. Duh. My point is that that difference is made up by the insurance company subsidizing it (technically they probably pay less, since they negotiate volume rates). If, as you and others propose, the insurance companies save money by preventing a bunch of baby lawyers popping out, why aren't they just giving it to their customers already?

 

I'll ask yet another way: why don't insurance companies charge MORE if you choose to opt out of birth control?

[DankNuggs 305]

You are missing my point. I get that it is cheaper for an individual if it is covered by their insurance. Duh. My point is that that difference is made up by the insurance company subsidizing it (technically they probably pay less, since they negotiate volume rates). If, as you and others propose, the insurance companies save money by preventing a bunch of baby lawyers popping out, why aren't they just giving it to their customers already?

 

I'll ask yet another way: why don't insurance companies charge MORE if you choose to opt out of birth control?

Insurance is a monopoly, they jack up prices to pass them down the line. If you are a broke deadbeat that's wonderful, it's all free and gravy. But if you contribute to society and have mediocre insurance with large deductibles and co pays it can be very costly. More costly I would guess than if they were competitively priced OTC at local pharmacies. This is a scam.

[MedStudent 56]

1330873154[/url]' post='4709809']

You are missing my point. I get that it is cheaper for an individual if it is covered by their insurance. Duh. My point is that that difference is made up by the insurance company subsidizing it (technically they probably pay less, since they negotiate volume rates). If, as you and others propose, the insurance companies save money by preventing a bunch of baby lawyers popping out, why aren't they just giving it to their customers already?

 

I'll ask yet another way: why don't insurance companies charge MORE if you choose to opt out of birth control?

 

This article says kaiser does not offer offer an opt out from preventive services. instead it offers those services for free if a company does not want them. makes you wonder why all companies who have kaiser would say they don't want them and just get them for free. It also makes you wonder why kaiser would offer it for free. they must think it saves them money.

 

 

Walter Yoshimitsu, chancellor of the Honolulu diocese and executive director of the Hawaii Catholic Conference, said that in most cases the model works, but issues still remain. For instance, despite the presence of the refusal clause in state law, some insurance companies decline to honor it.

 

Yoshimitsu said that Kaiser Permanente includes contraception coverage in all of its plans, and doesn't provide an opt-out for anyone, even religious groups. Instead, the company provides the coverage at no cost to those who don't want it. According to Yoshimitsu, only a small portion of people with Catholic organizations are enrolled with Kaiser, but such a policy still presents a problem because of a lack of distance between the church and the coverage.

 

http://ncronline.org...nsides-some-say

[Phurfur 70]

This article says kaiser does not offer offer an opt out from preventive services. instead it offers those services for free if a company does not want them. makes you wonder why all companies who have kaiser would say they don't want them and just get them for free. It also makes you wonder why kaiser would offer it for free. they must think it saves them money.

 

 

http://ncronline.org...nsides-some-say

 

Nothing is free, someone pays fpr everything. HTH

 

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money," - Margaret Thatcher

 

see Greece

[TheNewGirl 1,088]

Without insurance, the pill is pretty expensive. Because I am self-employed, I only have catastrophic health coverage so I pay my own bill and it cost me over $60 a month. I've paid as much as $80. When you have good insurance that covers this the co-pay is extremely low... about $10 IIRC.

 

I'm assuming this whole thing came up because Georgetown is a Catholic institution and their health care plan may not cover birth control due to the Church not wanting to support that coverage. Which is probably why this woman was going to testify in the first place and probably at the root of this whole debacle. I could be wrong, but I'd wager on it.In summary, most major insurance companies already cover this. If you don't have insurance it can be expensive.

 

From what I have read about this subject, you are right about the bolded.

 

She is going to a Catholic school. Of course they won't cover birth control. So, she's pissed that she has to pay for it, and is looking for someone else to pay for it for her...instead of her looking for other schools, other insurance, other birth control, or being abstinent.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

From what I have read about this subject, you are right about the bolded.

 

She is going to a Catholic school. Of course they won't cover birth control. So, she's pissed that she has to pay for it, and is looking for someone else to pay for it for her...instead of her looking for other schools, other insurance, other birth control, or being abstinent.

 

See, that part is the scary thing. Do we, as a country, really want college co-eds becoming abstinent? Hell no. If we are going to subsidize ANYTHING, it should be slutty 18-25 year olds.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke has been called many things, from a heroine to a “slut,” but actually, she may just be a fake. Gateway Pundit and Hot Air suggest that may be the case, with citations to a post by Jammie Wearing Fools that introduces the following interesting information:

 

For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

 

Though there aren’t links in the original post to the content mentioned, a little digging shows that it’s all true. Fluke has described herself as a third year law student at Georgetown University, and indeed, that is what she is. However, contrary to the narrative of innocent victimhood that portrays Fluke as a wide-eyed 23-year-old girl caught without contraception on a college campus full of predatory men, Fluke herself is really a 30-year-old women‘s rights activist who not only didn’t get caught without contraception at Georgetown, but specifically knew the university didn’t cover it and chose to attend for precisely that reason

[DankNuggs 305]

She is a libtard Chris Weinke LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

[drobeski 3,061]

Once again rush is right

[Recliner Pilot 61]

This Fluke dude spent 5 years prior to going to Georgetown championing the plight of the LGBTQ community, which means she is prolly a Dyke, so I'm not sure she even needs contraception.

[drobeski 3,061]

Obama called her :lol: desperate times call for desperate measures

[penultimatestraw 473]

Sure, but that is lying with statistics. The real question is: does the cost of providing birth control for free to all women outweigh the cost of prenatal care for those who do get pregnant? Also, health care for the baby doesn't count because you need a new (read: more expensive) plan when you have a dependent.

 

Empirically, I would say that the birth control option is more expensive, because if it weren't, insurance companies would be begging people to take it for free. I believe we've established that insurance companies care about nothing but the bottom line, right?

The real question is the cost of providing birth control to those who desire it - not all women of childbearing age.

 

Based on the definition of infertility, ~85% women regularly participating in unprotected intercourse will become pregnant in one year (the % per encounter ranges between 0-30%). Do you think the cost of an unwanted pregnancy is $850 or less?

You are missing my point. I get that it is cheaper for an individual if it is covered by their insurance. Duh. My point is that that difference is made up by the insurance company subsidizing it (technically they probably pay less, since they negotiate volume rates). If, as you and others propose, the insurance companies save money by preventing a bunch of baby lawyers popping out, why aren't they just giving it to their customers already?

 

I'll ask yet another way: why don't insurance companies charge MORE if you choose to opt out of birth control?

Economically , it would make sense for insurance co to pass the buck to those who opted out, though how could they guarantee the enrollees weren't using condoms or other non-prescription contraceptives? Surely there would be backlash from the groups who chose to opt out; it would be decried as discrimination based on their (religious) beliefs.

 

Jesus was an unplanned pregnancy, after all.

[jerryskids 5,433]

The real question is the cost of providing birth control to those who desire it - not all women of childbearing age.

 

Based on the definition of infertility, ~85% women regularly participating in unprotected intercourse will become pregnant in one year (the daily % ranges between 0-30%). Do you think the cost of an unwanted pregnancy is $850 or less?

 

If I follow the math you are trying to do, I think you want to divide instead of multiply: $1000/.85 = $1176.

 

That's not important though, because you are lying with statistics again. You presume that 100% of the women who are sexually active and not receiving free oral contraceptives will take no other actions to reduce the chance of pregnancy. If I'm an actuary looking at a crack house, I might be convinced it approaches 100%. If I'm looking at a prestigious law school, where the last thing a woman wants is an unplanned baby, I'm guessing it is much less than 100%.

[Phurfur 70]

 

Jesus was an unplanned pregnancy, after all.

 

No he wasn't!

 

Luke 1:30-31

 

But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus

[penultimatestraw 473]

If I follow the math you are trying to do, I think you want to divide instead of multiply: $1000/.85 = $1176.

 

That's not important though, because you are lying with statistics again. You presume that 100% of the women who are sexually active and not receiving free oral contraceptives will take no other actions to reduce the chance of pregnancy. If I'm an actuary looking at a crack house, I might be convinced it approaches 100%. If I'm looking at a prestigious law school, where the last thing a woman wants is an unplanned baby, I'm guessing it is much less than 100%.

Right on the math.

 

I realize there are contraceptive alternatives, some of which may be less costly (and less effective). I also realize there are other consequences of the pill (increased clotting risk, no protection from STI). Given the variability of sexual behavior (not to mention medication adherence) that you describe, how can one accurately estimate the collective unwanted pregnancy risk?

 

I think it is safe to assume women who use the pill (for contraception) don't desire pregnancy, however. Among this group, would it be cheaper for insurers to subsidize the pill or pay for their unplanned pregnancies from failure of alternative methods? IMO, the societal benefits alone justify the cost of preventing an unwanted child.

[penultimatestraw 473]

No he wasn't!

 

Luke 1:30-31

If it was planned, why was Mary afraid?

[drobeski 3,061]

Could there be a finer rebuttal to the nonsense of this subject than newts ?

[jerryskids 5,433]

Right on the math.

 

I realize there are contraceptive alternatives, some of which may be less costly (and less effective). I also realize there are other consequences of the pill (increased clotting risk, no protection from STI). Given the variability of sexual behavior (not to mention medication adherence) that you describe, how can one accurately estimate the collective unwanted pregnancy risk?

 

I think it is safe to assume women who use the pill (for contraception) don't desire pregnancy, however. Among this group, would it be cheaper for insurers to subsidize the pill or pay for their unplanned pregnancies from failure of alternative methods? IMO, the societal benefits alone justify the cost of preventing an unwanted child.

Accurate estimation: this is what actuaries do.

 

I'm not clear what you are asking with your last paragraph. I've made my argument as to why it may not be the case, including the empirical (rational?) conclusion that they would subsidize it if it were the case.

 

I just think the "but it's cheaper" argument is really weak and distracts from your side's argument. If you think all women (who want it) should have subsidized oral contraceptives, just own that position and let's have the discussion. Don't hide behind a bunch of bullshiot math. It's similar to saying Obamacare saves money. Just own the position that we should provide healthcare to everyone even if it costs more. I may or may not agree, but at least it doesn't insult my intelligence.

[gocolts 300]

 

POW!!!

[rallo 132]

i remember helping my GF pay for it in highschool... it was like 45 bucks a month... so $1,000 a year or $80 a month wouldn't be outrageous...

[drobeski 3,061]

Mark Levin nails it

[nikki2200 4]

Accurate estimation: this is what actuaries do.

 

I'm not clear what you are asking with your last paragraph. I've made my argument as to why it may not be the case, including the empirical (rational?) conclusion that they would subsidize it if it were the case.

 

I just think the "but it's cheaper" argument is really weak and distracts from your side's argument. If you think all women (who want it) should have subsidized oral contraceptives, just own that position and let's have the discussion. Don't hide behind a bunch of bullshiot math. It's similar to saying Obamacare saves money. Just own the position that we should provide healthcare to everyone even if it costs more. I may or may not agree, but at least it doesn't insult my intelligence.

 

So your "empirical" evidence is that because insurance companies cover both birth control and abortions, they don't provide them for free (even though as Med posted in some cases they do) therefore it must cost them more than women getting pregnant does? Seriously?

[gocolts 300]

Mark Levin nails it

SLAM!!!

[gocolts 300]

So your "empirical" evidence is that because insurance companies cover both birth control and abortions, they don't provide them for free (even though as Med posted in some cases they do) therefore it must cost them more than women getting pregnant does? Seriously?

Cost them more??? I keep seeing this. Most will find this shocking, but the insurance company gets more money each month depending on a few factors. One of the biggest factors is the number of people on the policy. So the insurance company probably makes tons of money off a lot of pregnancies in the long run.

[jerryskids 5,433]

So your "empirical" evidence is that because insurance companies cover both birth control and abortions, they don't provide them for free (even though as Med posted in some cases they do) therefore it must cost them more than women getting pregnant does? Seriously?

If you actually read my words, then you know that I am laughing at your response.

[BudBro 123]

 

I'm assuming this whole thing came up because Georgetown is a Catholic institution

that girl was a plant for the whole govt vs catholics obamacare bullsh**t fiasco.

 

I’ve not heard a single Republican politician stand up to the media narrative on this. Instead of projecting surrogate modesty towards Fluke, they project it towards Limbaugh, who is calling the truth for what it is. Fluke, a 30 year-old (presented as a 23 year-old college coed by the media) women’s activist/professional student, is likely not having monogamous sex with the same man approximately 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years (in order to satisfy the calculations about which she felt confident enough to present during a congressional testimony). If she is, kudos! But promiscuity is not the hallmark of a virtuous woman. Is it Limbaugh’s fault for pointing it out or Fluke’s fault for the behavior? It’s a rhetorical question and the answer proved Limbaugh’s entire point.

 

The real war on women is being perpetuated upon us by our own sex; women who seek to place us under the control of a pimp-daddy government by demanding it cover all our needs, in exchange for control, or force private entities to do so in its stead.

 

I also apparently missed the statements released by Congressman John Boehner and Senator Carly Fiorina condemning Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a “slut,” or when progressive talking heads called Sarah Palin names. I’m also disappointed that Rick Santorum didn’t turn this narrative around on it’s head and end it right then and there.

[MDC 5,993]

I have no opinion really on whether Fluke's insurance should cover contraception, but Rush calling her a slvt and saying she should provide videos of herself having sex is just low in so many ways. Argue against insurance being forced to cover it, whatever, but calling her a slvt because she wants to have sex without conceiving -

[Recliner Pilot 61]

This country is going down hill fast. All the sudden the Fed Govt can tell each and every American they have to buy something just cuz the feds say so. The Fed Govt can tell private industry they have to provide their product/service free of charge to anyone who wants it.

 

And now some kvnt gets on TV and whines cuz nobody wants to pay her $3000 condom bill, and all the sudden she is fukking Rosa Parks to the left and the MSM.

 

X 1000

[MedStudent 56]

1330993294[/url]' post='4710644']

that girl was a plant for the whole govt vs catholics obamacare bullsh**t fiasco.

 

 

 

So they planted her three years before this all came up? You have to admit that Obama is a master planner if he can think three years ahead that this issue would create a shiitstorm.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Accurate estimation: this is what actuaries do.

 

I'm not clear what you are asking with your last paragraph. I've made my argument as to why it may not be the case, including the empirical (rational?) conclusion that they would subsidize it if it were the case.

 

I just think the "but it's cheaper" argument is really weak and distracts from your side's argument. If you think all women (who want it) should have subsidized oral contraceptives, just own that position and let's have the discussion. Don't hide behind a bunch of bullshiot math. It's similar to saying Obamacare saves money. Just own the position that we should provide healthcare to everyone even if it costs more. I may or may not agree, but at least it doesn't insult my intelligence.

You have far more faith than I in actuarial science - sometimes the equation has too many variables to solve. Insurers act based on profitability, to be sure, but that is not their sole determinant of coverage. Your conclusion regarding subsidized contraceptives oversimplifies the situation as much as stating it "costs more" to have an unplanned pregnancy.

 

Personally, I don't think private insurance companies should have mandatory contraceptive coverage - they should weigh all conceivable (?pun intended) factors when deciding what to offer their potential customers. Nonetheless, I think low-cost or free contraception, even if government subsidized, benefits society far more than the direct financial cost of such subsidy. For example, people have argued that legalized abortion has led to reduction in crime (see Freakonomics). Not sure that is 100% accurate, but it illustrates one potential benefit of limiting unwanted pregnancies. Sanctimonious, insult-spewing demagogues will never change people's desire to have sex, IMO.

[drobeski 3,061]

I have no opinion really on whether Fluke's insurance should cover contraception, but Rush calling her a slvt and saying she should provide videos of herself having sex is just low in so many ways. Argue against insurance being forced to cover it, whatever, but calling her a slvt because she wants to have sex without conceiving -

booh focking hoo, god youre such a poosey

[Recliner Pilot 61]

booh focking hoo, god youre such a poosey

I remember when MDC got all butthurt over this.