Does birth control really cost

[jerryskids 6,797]

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.

 

I'm a big Freakonomics fan. He also talked about the challenges of isolating factors in actuary. I'm not saying they are always accurate, but rather it is their job to do as well as they can.

 

That being said, we have mechanisms in place to help provide those reproductive services to people who need them. That's a far cry from providing them for free to everyone.

[Little Rusty 18]

Sit down,..cross your legs & shut the Fluke up !

[MDC 7,422]

I remember when MDC got all butthurt over this.

 

 

First I heard that, guy is a giant doosh though just like you and drobs.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

First I heard that,

 

[MDC 7,422]

 

I don't watch cable news like you zombies.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I don't watch cable news like you zombies.

It was all over the innerwebs, and we had threads about it here.

 

But I guess you don't pay attention to those either.

[MDC 7,422]

It was all over the innerwebs, and we had threads about it here.

 

But I guess you don't pay attention to those either.

 

Not this one, but I'll agree: like you and Rush this guy is a fat dooshbag.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Not this one

[penultimatestraw 473]

I'm a big Freakonomics fan. He also talked about the challenges of isolating factors in actuary. I'm not saying they are always accurate, but rather it is their job to do as well as they can.

 

That being said, we have mechanisms in place to help provide those reproductive services to people who need them. That's a far cry from providing them for free to everyone.

I'm having trouble finding the exact wording of the contraception mandate - does it state that it should be provided at no charge, or just universally covered by insurance? I thought it was the latter, meaning it is not truly free. I realize copays will be waived, but was under the impression that the insurers were left to decide whether to increase premiums as a result of the change.

 

I don't think the mechanisms to which you allude are working well enough, as ~half of all pregnancies are unintended:My link

Facts on Unintended Pregnancy in the United States

 

• Most American families want two children. To achieve this, the average woman spends about five years pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant, and three decades—more than three-quarters of her reproductive life—trying to avoid an unintended pregnancy.[1]

• Most individuals and couples want to plan the timing and spacing of their childbearing and to avoid unintended pregnancies, for a range of social and economic reasons. In addition, untended pregnancy has a public health impact: Births resulting from unintended or closely spaced pregnancies are associated with adverse maternal and child health outcomes, such as delayed prenatal care, premature birth and negative physical and mental health effects for children. [2,3,4]

• For these reasons, reducing the unintended pregnancy rate is a national public health goal. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Healthy People 2020 campaign aims to reduce unintended pregnancy by 10%, from 49% of pregnancies to 44% of pregnancies, over the next 10 years.[5]

• About half (49%) of the 6.7 million pregnancies in the United States each year (3.2 million) are unintended (see box).[6]

• In 2006, there were 52 unintended pregnancies for every 1,000 women aged 15–44. In other words, about 5% of reproductive-age women have an unintended pregnancy each year.[6]

• By age 45, more than half of all American women will have experienced an unintended pregnancy, and three in 10 will have had an abortion.[6,7].

• The U.S. unintended pregnancy rate is significantly higher than the rate in many other developed countries.[8]

• At least 38% of pregnancies in every U.S. state are unintended. In 29 states and the District of Columbia, more than half of pregnancies are unintended (see map).[9]

• Rates of unintended pregnancy are generally highest in the South and Southwest, and in states with large urban populations.[9]

• The highest unintended pregnancy rates in 2006 were found in Mississippi (69 per 1,000 women aged 15–44), California (66), Delaware (66), the District of Columbia (67), Hawaii (66) and Nevada (66).[9]

• The lowest unintended pregnancy rates in 2006 were found in New Hampshire (36 per 1,000 women aged 15–44), Maine (37), North Dakota (37), Vermont (38) and West Virginia (39).[9]

 

Demographic Disparities

 

• Unintended pregnancy rates are highest among poor and low-income women, women aged 18–24, cohabiting women and minority women. [6]

• The rate of unintended pregnancy among poor women (those with incomes at or below the federal poverty level) in 2006 was 132 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, more than five times the rate among women at the highest income level (24 per 1,000). [6]

• Poor women’s high rate of unintended pregnancy results in their also having high rates of both abortions (52 per 1,000) and unplanned births (66 per 1,000). In 2006, poor women had an unintended birth rate six times as high as that of higher-income women.[6,7]

• In 2006, black women had the highest unintended pregnancy rate of any racial or ethnic groups. At 91 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, it was more than double that of non-Hispanic white women (36 per 1,000).[6]

• In 2006, women without a high school degree had the highest unintended pregnancy rate among all educational levels (80 per 1,000 women aged 15–44), and rates decreased as years of education attained increased.[6]

• Some groups—including higher-income women, white women, college graduates and married women—are comparatively successful at timing and spacing their pregnancies. For example, higher-income white women experience unintended pregnancy at one-third the national rate (17 vs. 52 per 1,000).[6]

• The proportion of pregnancies that are unintended generally decreases as age increases. The highest unintended pregnancy rate in 2006 was among women aged 20–24 (107 per 1,000 women).[6]

• Traditional estimates understate the extent to which sexually active teens experience unintended pregnancies, because they typically include all women, whether or not they are sexually active. While most older women are sexually active, many teens are not. The unintended pregnancy rate among only those teens who are sexually active is more than twice the rate among all women.[10]

 

Trends in Unintended Pregnancy

 

• The proportion of pregnancies that were unintended remained essentially stable between 2001 (48%) and 2006 (49%).[6]

• Following a considerable decline from 59 unintended pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–44 in 1981 to 49 per 1,000 in 1994, the overall U.S. unintended pregnancy rate has remained essentially flat since (see chart).[6]

• However, the rate has increased substantially among poor and low-income women, while declining among higher-income women. In 1994, the unintended pregnancy rate among women with incomes below the federal poverty line was 88 per 1,000 women aged 15–44; it rose to 120 in 2001 and 132 in 2006—a 50% increase since 1994. At the same time, the rate among higher-income women (those with incomes at or above 200% of the poverty line) fell from 34 in 1994 to 28 in 2001 and 24 in 2006—a 29% decrease.[6]

• Women aged 15–17 were one of the few groups to see notable improvements between 2001 and 2006. Both their unintended pregnancy rate and their unintended birth rate declined by roughly one-quarter.[6]

 

Outcomes of Unintended Pregnancy

 

• In 2006, 43% of unintended pregnancies ended in abortion and 48% ended in birth. This was a shift from 2001, when 47% ended in abortion and 46% ended in a birth.[6,11]

• In 2006, the unintended birth rate was 25 per 1,000 women aged 15–44.[6] The abortion rate in 2008 was 20 per 1,000 women.[7]

• The proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion decreased across all racial and ethnic subgroups. However, black women are still more likely to end an unintended pregnancy by abortion than women in other racial and ethnic groups.[6]

• Compared with higher-income women, poor and low-income women are less likely to end an unintended pregnancy by abortion. Consequently, poor women have a relatively high unintended birth rate.[6]

 

Cost of Unintended Pregnancy

 

• In 2006, two-thirds (64%) of the 1.6 million births resulting from unintended pregnancies were paid for by public insurance programs, primarily Medicaid. In comparison, 48% of births overall and 35% of births resulting from intended pregnancies were funded by these programs.[12]

• In 10 states and the District of Columbia, at least 70% of births resulting from unintended pregnancies were paid for by public programs. Louisiana and Mississippi had the highest proportions, at 81% each.[12]

• Total public expenditures for births resulting from unintended pregnancies nationwide were estimated to be $11.1 billion in 2006. Of that, $6.5 billion were federal expenditures and $4.6 billion were state expenditures.[12]

• In seven states, public expenditures on births resulting from unintended pregnancies exceeded half a billion dollars. California and Texas spent the most, at around $1.3 billion each.[12]

• Of the two million publicly funded births, about one million (51%) resulted from unintended pregnancies, accounting for half the total public expenditures on births.[12]

• These costs reflect the increasing concentration of unintended pregnancies and resulting unplanned births among poor and low-income women. As noted above, in 2006, 64% of unplanned births were publicly funded. Yet only 33% of women aged 15–44 that year had a family income below 200% of the federal poverty level, which is roughly the income eligibility ceiling for pregnancy-related care in most states’ Medicaid programs.[12]

 

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy

• Two-thirds of U.S. women at risk for unintended pregnancy use contraception consistently and correctly throughout the course of any given year; these women account for only 5% of all unintended pregnancies. In contrast, the 19% of women at risk who use contraception inconsistently or incorrectly account for 43% of all unintended pregnancies. The 16% of women at risk who do not practice contraception at all for a month or more during the year account for 52% of all unintended pregnancies (see graph).[13]

• Publicly funded family planning services help women avoid pregnancies they do not want and plan pregnancies they do want. In 2006, these services helped women avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions.[13]

• Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurring in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher among women overall and among teens; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.[13]

• The costs associated with unintended pregnancy would be even higher if not for continued federal and state investments in family planning services. In 2008, an estimated $1.9 billion in expenditures for services at publicly supported family planning centers resulted in $7 billion in gross savings from helping women avoid unintended pregnancies and the births that would follow.[14]

• In the absence of services provided by publicly funded family planning centers, the annual public costs of births from unintended pregnancy would increase 60% to $18 billion.[12]

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm having trouble finding the exact wording of the contraception mandate - does it state that it should be provided at no charge,

 

Ask your Hero:

 

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

Ask your Hero:

 

 

Thanks for the video, but it does not address whether insurance companies can adjust premiums based on the cost of contraceptive coverage. Any idea?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Thanks for the video, but it does not address whether insurance companies can adjust premiums based on the cost of contraceptive coverage. Any idea?

Dude, it's all FREE! Didn't you listen to your Hero?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Dude, it's all FREE! Didn't you listen to your Hero?

I like soundbites as much as the next guy, but my question remains unanswered. And what the he!! does Aquaman have to do with this?

[MedStudent 56]

Thanks for the video, but it does not address whether insurance companies can adjust premiums based on the cost of contraceptive coverage. Any idea?

I believe the insurance companies have to provide it free for any people covered under any religious organizations that object to paying for it on religious grounds. They can charge a premium for any other company or organization.

[jerryskids 6,797]

I'm having trouble finding the exact wording of the contraception mandate - does it state that it should be provided at no charge, or just universally covered by insurance? I thought it was the latter, meaning it is not truly free. I realize copays will be waived, but was under the impression that the insurers were left to decide whether to increase premiums as a result of the change.

 

I don't think the mechanisms to which you allude are working well enough, as ~half of all pregnancies are unintended:My link

 

My guess is that a bunch of things including contraception will be mandated. And limits on premiums will be set. Thus, no one thing will be "free" per se, and the insurance companies will be left to fit 13 eggs into a dozen carton. The administration will say with a straight face that nothing is free, and blame the insurance companies when necessary.

 

Regarding the mechanisms: I don't think those are the problem. Everyone has access to birth control today, for free if necessary. The new mandate will give it for free(-ish, see above) to those who already take it. It won't make irresponsible people responsible.

[MedStudent 56]

My guess is that a bunch of things including contraception will be mandated. And limits on premiums will be set. Thus, no one thing will be "free" per se, and the insurance companies will be left to fit 13 eggs into a dozen carton. The administration will say with a straight face that nothing is free, and blame the insurance companies when necessary.

 

Regarding the mechanisms: I don't think those are the problem. Everyone has access to birth control today, for free if necessary. The new mandate will give it for free(-ish, see above) to those who already take it. It won't make irresponsible people responsible.

 

More will be consumed with free access. It will prevent unwanted pregnancies.

[KSB2424 3,148]

Once this is MANDATED then will there still be a need for Title X funding?

 

Isn't places like Planned Parenthood primarily there to give cheap womens health care like contraception to people who want it but cannot afford it or their insurance doesn't cover it?

 

If you mandate that one must have insurance, then you mandate said insurance must cover all or most of womens health, then there is no need to fund the 'safety net' anymore right?

[Phurfur 70]

Once this is MANDATED then will there still be a need for Title X funding?

 

Isn't places like Planned Parenthood primarily there to give cheap womens health care like contraception to people who want it but cannot afford it or their insurance doesn't cover it?

 

If you mandate that one must have insurance, then you mandate said insurance must cover all or most of womens health, then there is no need to fund the 'safety net' anymore right?

 

 

and men should not be held accountable for unwanted pregnancies.

[jerryskids 6,797]

More will be consumed with free access. It will prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Describe for us the typical profile of a woman who doesn't use birth control today, but would under the new mandate. TIA.

[DanXIII 8]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/fact-check-obama-and-equal-pay-for-women/

 

Zero's centerpiece in his reelection is this bogus equal pay for women law that provides nothing but rhetoric...

 

This is the kind of cr@p he pulls.

 

lol there's been a push for a highway bill that both sides agree would create thousands of jobs for several years now. Meanwhile Congress and other idiots are sitting around talking about birth control.

 

Believe it or not, there's a lot of it going around.

[KSB2424 3,148]

lol there's been a push for a highway bill that both sides agree would create thousands of jobs for several years now. Meanwhile Congress and other idiots are sitting around talking about birth control.

This is what I do not understand about this whole topic. Out of all the women I've ever dated, in HS, through college, as an adult, I've never once heard a woman complain about not being able to get contraception or that is was so expensive. And some of those women didn't come from well to do homes. Add in the fact that most insurance covers it and we already have places like Planned Parenthood where a woman can go in and get inexpesive care/contraception already. This is such a non issue it mind boggling. It really boils down to Obamacare and trying to mandate something in the private secotor. That's all it is.

 

When there are literally a hundered much more important things going on in the world. True problems out there. This whole Fluke thing is a politcal game.

[DanXIII 8]

This is what I do not understand about this whole topic. Out of all the women I've ever dated, in HS, through college, as an adult, I've never once heard a woman complain about not being able to get contraception or that is was so expensive.

You didn't date enough poor chicks to get proper perspective?

[MDC 7,422]

 

It might surprise you to learn that some adults don't spend countless hours watching cable news and reading fringe political blogs so that they can post hundreds of partisan rants on a message board, and unless I see something about it in the daily paper or read about it here I generally don't know or care what Ed Schultz or Rush Limbaugh have to say.

 

Crazy, I know!

[KSB2424 3,148]

You didn't date enough poor chicks to get proper perspective?

Maybe, but seriously, can't the poor chicks just go to a womens clinic like Planned Parenthood already?

[DankNuggs 305]

Ulimately it is a cost born on the middle class. Who will see their insurance costs rise even more to subsidize more free services for others... its only free for the deadbeats... Gives more opportunity to pump up costs and pass them down the line...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I generally don't know or care what Ed Schultz or Rush Limbaugh have to say.

 

Crazy, I know!

 

 

Really? You sure seemed butthurt over what Rush said when you posted this:

 

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 -

 

[MDC 7,422]

Really? You sure seemed butthurt over what Rush said when you posted this:

 

 

 

 

Butthurt about it, not really. But I think the guy is a disgusting pig and he disgraces the Republican party. I still don't watch cable news and I'd have no idea what Ed Schultz ever said if you didn't post that YouTube link.

 

Then again I'm not the kind of guy who spends countless hours of my time rooting through political blogs and posting hundreds of threads about it on FFT just to troll a bunch of anonymous men.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Maybe, but seriously, can't the poor chicks just go to a womens clinic like Planned Parenthood already?

See, bringing up Planned Parenthood in this discussion isn't good for their side since they hand out this stuff to the poor for free. It was good to bring up Planned Parenthood a few weeks ago when the Komen Foundation announced it was pulling it's donations to PP that amounted to about 1/2 of 1% of PP funding. Then there was outrage about Komen wanting to take away free contraception from the poor and minorities.

 

The left only brings things up when it benefits their latest tirade to scare the lemmings.

[MDC 7,422]

The left only brings things up when it benefits their latest tirade to scare the lemmings.

 

Wow.

 

Are you trying to break the Guiness world record for being a hypocritical dooshtard or something?

[TheNewGirl 1,491]

Maybe, but seriously, can't the poor chicks just go to a womens clinic like Planned Parenthood already?

 

 

I think that's the point.

 

Yes, they can.

 

Contraception is free for women right now. Planned Parenthood, etc. Some insurance plans carry contraception as free, others are very low cost, some are high cost. So, as the woman, you look for new insurance, or go outside of your insurance and get it for free at PP.

 

I like jerry's comment that even mandating that it be free for women that it will not make irresponsible people repsonsible. You can make the pill free, but if a woman doesn't want to take it, she won't. I kow a few people who got pregnant while on the pill because they forgot to take it or whatever. I can see it maybe brining the rate of unplanned pregnancies DOWN, but not that much. You still have stupid women out there that forget to take their pills, or whatever.

 

Let's also remember that the pill doesn't come without risks for women, too. So, I certainly hope that insurance companies or whomever make coverage better for the problems that the pill can cause.

[DankNuggs 305]

Butthurt about it, not really. But I think the guy is a disgusting pig and he disgraces the Republican party. I still don't watch cable news and I'd have no idea what Ed Schultz ever said if you didn't post that YouTube link.

 

Then again I'm not the kind of guy who spends countless hours of my time rooting through political blogs and posting hundreds of threads about it on FFT just to troll a bunch of anonymous men.

buy a pack of condoms if you don't want to get knocked up..... Why are birth control pills the only means to prevent pregnancy? While i think its overall a small dumb smokescreen, the logic justifying it is pretty poor.

[MDC 7,422]

buy a pack of condoms if you don't want to get knocked up..... Why are birth control pills the only means to prevent pregnancy? While i think its overall a small dumb smokescreen, the logic justifying it is pretty poor.

 

The logic justifying your post is pretty poor too - it had absolutely nothing with what I said here.

[TheNewGirl 1,491]

buy a pack of condoms if you don't want to get knocked up..... Why are birth control pills the only means to prevent pregnancy? While i think its overall a small dumb smokescreen, the logic justifying it is pretty poor.

 

 

Because men complain about them?

 

I can't tell you how many times I have heard men say that it dulls the sensation, that they can't feel anything, blah blah blah. Certainly not wearing one is OK for them since it makes it not "feel good."

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Because men complain about them?

 

I can't tell you how many times I have heard men say that it dulls the sensation, that they can't feel anything, blah blah blah. Certainly not wearing one is OK for them since it makes it not "feel good."

Try this:

 

If you want to fukk you will put on a condom.

 

If you don't put on a condom-

 

We could start a pole to see which one would be chosen, but I think we know the answer.

[DankNuggs 305]

The logic justifying your post is pretty poor too - it had absolutely nothing with what I said here.

sex is elective, people have freedom to make dumb choices. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the citizenry to subsize the free dumb elective choice of people...

 

 

You can choose to make a financial decision that can put you into foreclosure/bankruptcy, it is not the responsibility of the citizenry to make you whole because of your bad choice.

 

Experience is the worst teacher, its gives the test before the lesson... For every kid that makes the wrong choice and gets bailed out it incentivizes the next one to expect the same or more out of the system, its a vicious entitlement cycle.

[MDC 7,422]

sex is elective, people have freedom to make dumb choices. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the citizenry to subsize the free dumb elective choice of people...

 

 

You can choose to make a financial decision that can put you into foreclosure/bankruptcy, it is not the responsibility of the citizenry to make you whole because of your bad choice.

 

Experience is the worst teacher, its gives the test before the lesson... For every kid that makes the wrong choice and gets bailed out it incentivizes the next one to expect the same or more out of the system, its a vicious entitlement cycle.

 

Another post that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

 

Are you tripping on acid or drunk at all times? Borderline schizophrenic? Every time you reply to one of my posts it has NOTHING at all to do with anything I said.

[DankNuggs 305]

Condoms aren't proposed to be free because they are single use elective items vs the pill which gets characterized as medication... Its just a technicality because of the way that it works... If BC was administered right before or after sex itd be considered like a condom...

 

 

So a technicality justifying poor logic.

[TheNewGirl 1,491]

Try this:

 

If you want to fukk you will put on a condom.

 

If you don't put on a condom-

 

We could start a pole to see which one would be chosen, but I think we know the answer.

 

 

Of course, which is what I would do when I was dating/slutting around.

 

However, men STILL would talk about how much they hated wearing them.

 

The ONLY person I have ever had sex with that didn't complain was my husband.

 

Unfortunately, amny women out there think that having sex with a man = love, and many men know this. "If you loved me, you'd let me put it in for a minute...."

 

Men are always in our vaginas. Literally and figuratively...and if they AREN"T in there they are thinking about it and what they can do to control it.

[DankNuggs 305]

Another post that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

 

Are you tripping on acid or drunk at all times? Borderline schizophrenic? Every time you reply to one of my posts it has NOTHING at all to do with anything I said.

You are tripping over a shock jock successfully riling you up... I thought addressing it was a waste. All this attention only helps Rush, guy relies on ratings.

[MDC 7,422]

You are tripping over a shock jock successfully riling you up... I thought addressing it was a waste. All this attention only helps Rush, guy relies on ratings.

 

I'm not tripping about it and it may help Rush but it hurts Republicans. It arguably hurts Rush too - he lost several major advertizers over it. I like when Rush spouts off, it really shines a lot on the thought pattern of a lot of his listeners.