The Instigator
valcarcelm
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Should insurance companies be required to cover contraceptive pills?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,473 times Debate No: 21772
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

valcarcelm

Pro

This debate has been an on-going one on the news and throughout our country.
Many people believe that it is wrong for companies to provide women with contraceptives to have sex. However, I think differently. Insurance companies should cover contraceptive pills.
The purpose of insurance companies is to cover any medical needs a person needs. Contraceptive pills are a medical need. These pills do not only prevent pregnancy but they also regulate hormones.
Many women today suffer with uncontrollable hormones. These hormones cause women to not get their menstrual cycle every month like they should. Extremely painful and heavy menstrual cycles are abnormal. These abnormalities are dangerous for a woman's future. It can damage a woman's future or even make it difficult to have a child, when ready.
Contraceptives can help regulate a women's menstrual cycle, control her hormones, and also prevent pregnancy.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

First, I would like to thank PRO for initiating this debate. Thank you, PRO.

I do not believe that it is wrong for companies to provide women with contraceptives to have sex, but I do believe that it is wrong to require insurance companies to cover contraceptive pills.

Additionally, I disagree that the purpose of insurance companies is to cover any medical needs of a person. I believe that the purpose of insurance companies is to transfer risk, and that they should only have to provide treatment for specific issues specified in the type of policy purchased, and that the policy should not include contraceptive pills as a matter of necessity.

I'm not sure if this round is supposed to just be for acceptance or not, so to keep "o'th' windy side of the law", I'll await PRO's next line of arguments.

Source(s):

Debate Round No. 1
valcarcelm

Pro

Health insurance is defined as coverage for medicine, visits to the doctor or emergency room, hospital stays and other medical expenses.
Read more: http://www.investorwords.com...
Policies may differ but I think one of the policies should cover contraceptive pills. As I stated before, contraceptives could be a medical need for some women.
health insurance should cover the cost of birth control, because it's cheaper to prevent pregnancy than to give birth. Any insurance company who doesn't see the financial gain in preventing unwanted pregnancies is foolish and short-sighted. The rate of surgical birth in this country is over 35%, and costs tens of thousands of dollars. Compared to the $30 monthly cost of birth control pills, it doesn't make sense to pay for the delivery, but not the pregnancy prevention. A woman could take birth control pills for 4 years for the same cost of one live birth that has no complications or surgery. And that doesn't count the prenatal care.
Many people are always judging women that get abortions because they can't afford to bring a child into this world. However, if insurance had covered contraceptives there would be less unplanned pregnancies and abortions
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I would first like to draw attention to the fact that the resolution states "Should insurance companies be required to cover contraceptive pills?" implying that PRO will argue that insurance companies should be required to cover contraceptive pills.

PRO says that policies may differ, but one of the policies should cover contraceptive pills. I disagree. I think that some insurance companies, if they feel it prudent, ought to offer plans covering contraceptive pills. That should be adequate.

1. There is no reason to make it necessary for all insurance companies

If you want contraceptive pills covered, find an insurance company that covers them. If you desperately need your contraceptive pills, don't bind yourself to an insurance provider that won't provide them. There is no need to force everyone to provide contraceptive pills when you could just switch providers. "Aha!" you might cry ('you' being a hypothetical reader) "But I get my health insurance from my job! They won't switch for me!". According to Planned Parenthood, contraceptive pills are only $15-$50 a month. Why force all insurance companies to provide for something that is relatively inexpensive?

2. Forcing insurance companies to provide contraceptives may raise premiums

If all insurance companies have to provide contraceptives, they will probably raise premiums, because providing for contraceptive pills is a monthly cost they would have to pay for anyone on a contraceptive-providing plan. The increase in premiums could cause increases for people on non-contraceptive providing plans, which doesn't seem quite fair. This is also related (vaguely) to my next point.

3. Forcing insurance companies to provide contraceptives causes issues for people of certain religions

Obviously, the most outstanding example of this is the Catholic Church. If every insurance company was forced to provide some sort of contraceptive pill coverage, then any person or organization purchasing insurance would indirectly be funding the purchase of contraceptives. As I stated previously, the Catholic Church in particular is opposed in full to paying for insurance that would provide contraceptives to the staff in Catholic institutions. It wouldn't be as much of a problem if the resolution did not imply that all insurance companies would be required to provide contraceptive pills, but mandating all companies to provide such pills as a matter of necessity is quite outrageous.

Also, I'm not really sure if PRO's last line was an argument or not, but contraceptives and abortions are not the only way to prevent children from being born.

In conclusion, while I believe that it is not unacceptable for insurance companies to provide contraceptive pills, I do not believe that all insurance companies should be forced to provide contraceptive pills.

Sources:

[1] How Health Insurance Works: http://bit.ly...

[2] Planned Parenthood on contraceptive pill costs: http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 2
valcarcelm

Pro

I think insurance companies should still be required to cover contraceptive pills because it is still a medical necessity for some women with unbalanced hormones.
1. All insurance companies do need to provide some kind of policy with contraceptives.
People do not bind themselves to insurance companies, they usually have no choice because that is what their job offers. So its not fair that only SOME insurance companies provide contraceptive pills when those insurance companies may not be offered to some people.
Also planned parenthood provide contraceptives $15-$50. However, everyone has different reactions to some pills. $15-$20 pills are not expensive but $50/month is difficult every month for some people that are less fortunate and need it for medical needs.
2. everyone pays for insurance premiums that they really don't use. its not unfair when insurance companies can raise premiums for other medical needs that not all people need.
3. If catholic people have a problem with contraceptives. They are not required to get them it is optional.
4. In a sex driven society. Yes, contraceptives and abortions are the only ways to prevent pregnancy. In a survey in 2002 95% of people reported they had premarital sex. Ten years later, it appears, that this has not changed seeing how pregnancy is being promoted through television (16 & Pregnant).

In Conclusion insurance companies should be required to provide contraceptives not only to prevent pregnancy but to also help balance people that actually need it.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I thank my opponent for another round of thoughtful arguments. However, I procrastinated a bit on this round and will not be able to deliver as full a response as I would like to. Fortunately, there are still many rounds to go, so I doubt this will doom me.

Responses:

1. Necessity for all insurance companies
It is completely fair that people have limited access to contraceptives depending on the insurance that they have. Saying that it is not fair that some people are stuck with a certain insurer because of their job is like saying it is not fair that some people are stuck with a certain salary because of their job.

2. There is a difference between contraceptives and most things covered by health insurance. In the next round I will more fully elaborate on why contraceptives will have a generally negative impact on insurance premiums.

3. I apologize for screwing this argument up. The issue is that Catholic hospitals often self-insure, and that would then require the hospital, a Catholic institution, to provide birth control for employees against the teachings of the Church. I have no source yet, but if necessary I can produce one for the next round.

4. Just because it is a sex driven society doesn't mean that your insurance company should be providing your birth control for you. I have a lot to say about this, but I'll say it next round because I don't have much time. I would like to say, however, that abstinence provides better protection than contraceptives, and that abortion does not prevent pregnancy. In addition, an unsourced survey from 2002 extrapolated with the aid of a TV series is not necessarily reliable.

In conclusion, insurance companies should not be required to provide contraceptives. Additionally, PRO continually states that women may need contraceptive pills for medical needs, however no sources are ever provided to support this.
Debate Round No. 3
valcarcelm

Pro

valcarcelm forfeited this round.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

Well, my opponent has obviously forfeited, which was not altogether unexpected considering the length of this debate. Since I have yet to see someone post an argument after their opponent forfeited the same round, I will not make any arguments this round.

Hopefully my opponent will return for Round 5.

I apologize for waiting so long to post this when I'm not making any arguments, but it took me a while to decide whether or not I should continue arguing or just wait.
Debate Round No. 4
valcarcelm

Pro

valcarcelm forfeited this round.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I'll take my opponent's forfeit to mean that I have negated the resolution so completely that she can no longer even make a pretense of affirming it.

In all honesty, although my opponent presented a good case, I feel she has failed to fulfill her Burden of Proof, especially considering that she forfeited the last two rounds.

I strongly urge a vote for CON.

-_________________________-
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Good debate topic.

I think the important point is that the purpose of insurance is to transfer risk. In Japan, there is a big business selling insurance that only covers cancer. In the US, until Obamacare makes them illegal, there is a business selling high deductible policies. People are buying products to cover specified risks, and there is no case to make that illegal. Note that non-contraceptive medical uses of birth control pills are ordinarily covered.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
valcarcelmAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The cost argument is that it might be wise for insurance companies to cover contraceptives, but not that they should be compelled. Con is correct that the purpose of insurance is to transfer risk, not to transfer costs. Pro forfeits lose conduct.
Vote Placed by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
valcarcelmAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Two points for the FF.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
valcarcelmAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF