Health insurance already covers birth control for men such as vasectomies and other things of the like. However, when a woman wants to get her tubes tied, insurance companies will refuse to cover it. In my opinion this debate is simply an argument of equal treatment of the sexes and discrimination rather than simply insurance issues.
17% of the country live under the poverty line, and this is a growing trend. We have seen a great majority of the working class slip, and the average worker makes $11.70 an hour, while the CEO of Goldman Sachs, a company bailed out with the help of the government, makes $1,322 and a tenth more an hour (40 hour weeks presumed). The minimum wage either has to be raised to $11.35, or we may end up as a welfare state. Either we will have to give food stamps or ask Wendy's to pay its workers a wage where at the end of the day they can afford a burger they just flipped. To if birth control should be covered by health insurance, yes, for the same reason pain medications are covered, they are a preventative initiative. If a man doesn't get his medications he may end up in the emergency room. This is at the cost of the insurance company, so they see it as their issue, so they add medications into the health insurance. Now the birth control may protect the woman from an unwanted pregnancy, which may cost her up to a million dollars over the course of the child's life, but the insurance company doesn't see an issue because they're not stuck with the tab, and contraceptives are just sticking them with a small inconvenience to their great profits. This is exactly why governments should step in to protect people from corporate greed.
If health insurance is not covering birth control then we may face more "babies having babies." The economy may pay heavily for this, less adults paying for more childern. Birth control is also used a a hormonal aid. without this aid women and teens both may face severely uncomfortable symptoms. I think that the government should rather help pay for more control than a baby boom since the cost is less than a hundred to over a thousand.
If a woman gets put on birth control, it doesn't necessarily mean that she's on it just to prevent pregnancy. She may be on it because of her menstrual cycle. If a woman has a very long, painful, heavy period, and goes to her doctor about it, they may prescribe her birth control, if she can't afford it, she's going to be stuck with a horrible menstrual cycle. Health insurance should cover it, because maybe that woman can't afford it, but really needs it, not just to prevent pregnancy's but for their menstrual cycles. Do you really think denying someone the right to not be in pain is fair? I don't.
With what I pay for a family policy insurance should cover everything, it's insane I actually spend more for insurance the the cost of medical and I never meet my deductible. As someone with insurance the US needs some kind of new medical because we are all getting screwed by the insurance companies.
Birth control is not expensive any good insurance already covers it. And the reality is people are not going to stop having sex but it would be nice if they'd stop getting pregnant for a lack of birth control. And I agree with the no voter who thought condoms should be covered, they should because you should always use two forms.
Birth control is essential to help single people and couples choose what they want. Health insurance should cover birth control for all people, and young adults should have full access to all birth control options. This makes it possible for people to choose how many children they wish to have and choose when to have children.
People have an extremely adverse reaction to abortions, but if more people were able to completely prevent pregnancies in the first place, there would be far less of an outcry about abortions. People need to be able to take charge of their lives, and being able to have a baby when you want, and are ready to, is an important transition point that needs to be achieved. China has a limit on their population growth in law, but we have the chance to do something even better by educating our citizens and allowing them to control their birth cycles.
Birth control should be covered by health insurance, because there are many instances that people need it for medical reasons. There are also others who need to avoid getting pregnant for medical reasons, as well. Also, if it will not be covered by health insurance, then many people who could not afford it would get pregnant, and would cause an even worse problem.
A woman taking precautionary measures to prevent pregnancy should not be discouraged, but rather the opposite. Many women do not have the means to take care of a child. Even if their insurance may cover the costs of the pregnancy itself, they certainly do not contribute to the care of the child afterward. And I would also imagine that covering birth control costs would be far less expensive than covering all the hospital bills and doctor's visits while actually having a baby.
Whether or not someone believes in birth control, it should not preclude it from being covered by health insurance. Health insurance is able to better serve those who use it, meaning keeping its costs down, when it ends up spending less money on claims. I would think, though I'm no expert, that birth control is probably a lot less expensive to cover than pregnancy.
No, there is no medically founded research that supports birth control prevents or treats any disease, unless you consider pregnancy a disease. In fact quite the opposite, it has been known to cause blood clots and other complications. I do not discourage birth control being available to all women, and I also do not discourage abortion for for whatever reason, but it should NOT be covered by insurance (except in circumstances of medical complications). If anything I could make a case for condoms being covered by insurance before birth control, they're cheaper, easily accessible, and unlike birth control actually prevent the spread of HIV and other STDs, while not causing any type of medical complications for the users. Screw the religious arguments and screw the it encourages or enables sexual activity, I'm not arguing those at all. I am 100% arguing for personal responsibility, something a lot of American's don't like. If you want to have sex with someone wear a condom, it's safer and much easier to use than birth control. And quite frankly if you can't afford an $8 box of condoms, you can't afford to have sex. If by birth control you meant things like, fertility screenings, and all procedures and tests, before, during, and after a pregnancy, sure those should be covered. But in terms of the pill, when not used to treat a hormonal imbalance, or other medical complications, and it is used strictly for sexual reasons, it is not longer a "medical reason" and becomes a personal reason. Personal responsibility people, it means it's your responsibility. (And a painful, heavy period would be considered a medical reason, and thus insurable, the majority of birth control users however, use it strictly to prevent pregnancy.)
Unless the private insurance company wants it to be covered or it is for health reasons, it should not be covered. It's no mystery where babies come from, and people don't have to have sex. It's all about taking personal responsibility and having self control. Government-provided insurance should absolutely not pay for birth control. That just enables.
The decision to go on birth control is a personal choice; just like plastic surgery, birth control is not necessary for your own well being. The sole purpose for birth control is for the convenience of the user. There are very few medical benefits from taking birth control, which means that it would rarely be recommend to improve someone's health.
Birth-control is a CHOICE women make; it costs nothing to just keep your legs together. So birth-control isn't a necessity, it's a CHOICE and a LUXURY.
And medical insurance shouldn't cover elective treatments, any more than it should cover breast-implants.
But women today make crazy arguments how they're entitled to everything from birth-control to prevent unwanted pregnancy, to fertility-treatments and artificial insemination to CAUSE it; and it's disturbing to think that they're not only so irrational, but so GREEDY to think that the world OWES them things the don't even need!
As others say here, this just passes on the costs to the other customers, and that's unethical and unfair.
But women's groups use politics to push more unfair laws than Stalin.
We are already spending a lot of money on health insurance to make sure people with cancer and other illnesses are able to live a nice life. We, as tax payers, should not pay to make sure someone does not get pregnant by having consensual sex. If the person does not want a baby, than I advise them not to have sex. But, we, as taxpayers, should not have to pay extra in taxes to make sure someone else does not make a mistake by their own stupidity.
Health insurance is not the only means of making birth control available. Thus the policy question is not whether everyone should have access to birth control but instead whether health insurance should be the primary source of assistance to make birth control accessible to everyone. Birth control is elective, health insurance is the primary source of coverage for healing injury caused by elective behavior such as smoking (cancer) or skiing (broken bones). Health insurance won't pay for safety gear that would reduce your chance of injury while skiing. Similarly it won't pay for birth control to keep you from getting pregnant. Pregnancy is not an injury. Pregnancy is a normal function of a healthy person - if nobody suffered from susceptibility tot his healthy function we would be the last generation of a soon to be extinct species. Health insurance should pay for fertility treatments to allow the normal fertile function. The same goes for erection medication because it treats a dysfunction. Fertility that leads to pregnancy through sex isn't described in medial terms as sterile dysfunction. There is no dysfunction. Pregnancy is expensive, has adverse health consequences, and does interfere with non-pregnant functionality. If being pregnant were considered quasi-ill then permanent sterilization, vaccination against pregnancy, merits coverage but not birth control. Birth control betrays what it is truly intended for - getting pregnant but not getting pregnant right now. The timing of pregnancy is an elective choice - current health insurance doesn't cover electives. If health insurance did cover electives that would be a different policy discussion and it should be discussed without reference to birth control to avoid using the coverage of electives as a sham argument for birth control and not other elective surgery such as breast augmentation or rhinoplasty.
It's a slippery slope when we start allowing Washington to decide what individual employers must provide in health ins. Taking birth control out of it there are currently many different levels of health care provided by employers around the country; some more comprehensive than others. This is none of the governments business. We all look at benefits offered when considering excepting a job. Having those benefits become a government forced mandate is going to cone off the profit margins of companies which will be reflected in cuts in pay and other benefits. This is simply not something Washington should be wasting their time with. We have other much more serious problems in this country. I have a huge copayment and deductible. Should Washington force my employer to provide better coverage. That's the slippery slope here folks. Don't allow them to continue controlling our lives at every turn.
The topic 'should birth control be covered by health insurance' implies, to me anyway, that the purpose of the provided birth control is birth control, not treating some other disease. That's why I answer no. And my supporting headline is in response to 'Insurance should cover everything'. I don't support you passing on your birth control costs to other people via insurance, and if every single person with the insurance is getting birth control regularly, the prices will probably be such that they might as well buy it themselves rather than through a middleman.
If you don't have the self-control to abstain from sex, who's to say that you have the self-control to remember to take the pills on a regular basis?
We are given charge of our own bodies. Equally, we are given charge of our minds.
It's time to take responsibility for own actions.
The government has no business mandating coverage of an optional medication. I understand that some women take hormonal contraceptives for other medical conditions but having unprotected sex isn't a medical condition, it's a choice. I do however think that it is most likely in the best interest of insurance companies to cover in part or completely birth control medication because in the long run it will save them the costs associated with pregnancy. As a woman, I have paid for and used birth control in the past and it was obviously my choice to use and pay for it. I feel that people in general should take some personal responsibility. Even without insurance, birth control is relatively inexpensive for the generic. If you can't afford the uninsured price of $20-$50 a month for generic birth, then you probably shouldn't be having unprotected sex. Spending $240 to $600 a year for birth control is much cheaper than paying for a child.