I can't begin to count the ways in which this is screwed up. I am leery of people who claim that their religion exempts them from a law that other people have to follow. So to that extent I sort of agree with the Times. On the other hand, the Times would be singing a completely different tune if the objections were coming from Muslims instead of Christians. And on the third hand, everyone should be able to get an exemption from this, regardless of their religion, because it's not within the Constitutionally defined powers of the federal government to issue the mandate in the first place. So here we are.

And yes, pregnancy is by definition not an insurable event. Just like me eating a gallon of ice cream every night and getting fat because of it is not an insurable event. The two fundemental tenants of insurance are: (1) insurance can only cover events that the insured does not control, and (2) the insured cannot realize a profit from having insurance.

You know, this mandate (including the part where the insurance is forced to NOT use customary copays/deductibles/coinsurance for contraceptives) is probably going to increase the use of birth control for acne treatment....

Unintended consequences...

Got to love how the left is always complaining how immoral businesses are. But then actively prevents them from doing something the businesses consider moral.

I fully agree, everyone should be excepted from this, it is a law that frankly is unconstitutional, regardless of what the idiots in the SC said. But if some non-government types can get excepted from a bad law good for them, we should strive for the same , not try to force others into a bad situation too.
Libs are always harping on separation of church and state, but the real problem with that is the state needs to stop expanding into every aspect of everyone's lives. That is the way you keep church and state separated.

Adults who have sex should to the adult and responsible thing and pay to prevent unwanted conception.

I agree (well, I think insurance should cover hormonal BC but not at no cost/zero copay). But even so, this gets hairy quickly:

1) My 40-something coworker has had innumerable bungee jumping and skateboarding injuries. Should his injuries be covered? He says he's going to take up rock climbing next. And do we cover the long-term health issues of alcoholics?

2)What about people who use hormonal BC to treat other medical issues? Sure, we could require these people to have the BC prescribed specifically for that condition. But that would be super easy to fudge. Lots of doctors will take their patients' word for anything and scribble out a prescription. I know this because I've gotten doctors to do it.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) mandates not only that employers provide comprehensive medical insurance to their full-time employees, but also that the coverage include contraceptives -- at no cost to employees. Because contraceptives are not found free in nature and insurance companies are for-profit businesses, not charitable foundations, this means that the explicit expense must be borne by employers.

Contraceptives aside: This is just incorrect. Employers do not provide medical coverage "at no cost to employees"; employees pay into medical coverage. Cancer treatments, Pap smears, prostate exams and just about everything else that falls under medical coverage isn't found free in nature, either.

There's no such thing as "at no cost to employees." Insurance costs affect the cost of employment. That cost will be reflected in wages and hiring decisions. People who don't get raises pay that cost. People who don't get hired pay that cost. Trying to control costs while ignoring economic reality is like trying to grab a handful of gravy. Something will always come squirting out, and probably on your new necktie.

rule #1: "Ain't nothin' Free."
rule #2: see above.

oh, and? Regardless, they ain't paying for guys... only women. So amongst the other stuff I'll be subsidizing as an old guy is contraception I can't use, and also pregnancy care I couldn't possibly need, as a single old guy.

Oh, wait, I'm a single old white guy, so I should just shut up, right?

OTOH... since this whole pyramid scheme is predicated on getting healthy people who don't use doctors, to pay, so that people who DO use doctors can afford it... I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the whole thing would be robbing Peter to pay Paul... or Pauline.

Reminds me of a FooFighters song called "I'll Stick Around."

The refrain? "I don't owe you anything"

sofar, I don't know the specifics of skateboarder-dude's insurance situation, but I do know that, for instance, professional athletes who engage in dangerous sports (e.g., race car drivers) have to take out special insurance. There is a limit to what ordinary policies will cover.

Well said, sofar.

Here's a third example:

"....if the same parties who put forth such a strong rationale for limiting (women's) access to contraceptives started to clamor for legislative protection for pharmacists who refused to fill Viagra prescriptions for male clients who will not certify that they will use the drug only in the context of connubial, procreative sex, one might begin to take their philosophical/moral/ethical concerns seriously."

Kyle Brown, M.D.
Iowa City

Not to mention that pregnancy, even in the U.S., can be pretty dangerous even in healthy women, so why SHOULDN'T it be prevented when the patient wishes? Besides, birth control is a lot cheaper for society than babies are - and plenty of babies will never become taxpayers anyway, through no fault of the parents.
______________________________

Regardless, they ain't paying for guys... only women. So amongst the other stuff I'll be subsidizing as an old guy is contraception I can't use, and also pregnancy care I couldn't possibly need, as a single old guy.

Oh, wait, I'm a single old white guy, so I should just shut up, right?

Posted by: SwissArmyD at January 6, 2014 10:53 AM
______________________________________

And what makes you so sure that the male Pill - or other male contraceptives - won't get covered and female contraceptives will?

One other thing. I know that women as well as men often oppose the coverage of birth control, but when it comes to the men, do they WANT to see their chances of unwanted fatherhood go up? What gives? Are they the same men who wouldn't dream of paying for condoms - or helping their wives/lovers pay for any other method - because they actually believe that "it doesn't benefit me, only her"?

I don't get it.

"And what makes you so sure that the male Pill - or other male contraceptives - won't get covered and female contraceptives will?"

I can assure you, with 100% certainty, that the male Pill will never be legalized in the U.S., much less covered by insurance.

@Cousin Dave

Oh, he's no professional, believe me. :) Besides, we're on a group plan at work, which covers everyone for everything (after a deductible, of course). I suppose pre-Obamacare, he would have had a tough time on the individual market(since he probably had an injury-history a mile long -- and insurers used to count that as having a "preexisting condition."). But my understanding is that nobody can be rejected on the individual market anymore (b/c of Obamacare) and can only be made to pay more based on age, location and smoking.

I've realized, though, I'm making a bad comparison. Preventative care (like BC) isn't like medical care you receive after an accident. It's more like wanting your insurance company to pay for a better bungee cord. But what about pregnancy (which many people here seem to think shouldn't be covered in basic plans)? If we don't cover that, why would we skateboarding injuries? Or injuries people got while drunk (or texting while driving)? Or any injuries people get from their stupidity/thrill-seeking hobby of choice.

I may have quoted this before, but this letter, like the other, is from the NY Times Magazine:

"....Why stop there? Will we soon see the day when a pharmacist can refuse to fill Prozac prescriptions because of a belief that those suffering from depression are better treated by therapy and willpower alone? Allowing a pharmacist to determine which prescriptions are 'moral' or 'immoral' opens the door to very dangerous territory indeed."
______________________________

I can assure you, with 100% certainty, that the male Pill will never be legalized in the U.S., much less covered by insurance.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at January 6, 2014 2:23 PM
________________________________

Source, please? How much are you willing to bet on that and why?

(We've been through this before.)

Besides, birth control is a lot cheaper for society than babies are

Also, it's funny ... I recently went to a part of the world where malaria is common. I got a scrip from a travel doctor and was able to get malaria pills that would have ordinarily cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars at a huge discount, thanks to my insurance. My boyfriend got a smaller discount via his policy (which he bought on the individual market). It was our choice to go hang out in a part of the world where mosquitos are more likely to kill you, but insurance covered it. People focus on BC as something that "shouldn't be covered! Rabble rabble rabble," and yet 20 malaria pills that cost more than six-months' supply of birth control are covered. So were our vaccinations (which we wouldn't have needed if we'd stayed in the US).

I'm all for a rousing discussion about what health insurance should/should not cover, but it ALWAYS seems to center around BC.

I'm all for a rousing discussion about what health insurance should/should not cover, but it ALWAYS seems to center around BC.

Agree completely, but consider the source: You're dealing with a ding-dong here who can write a sentence like this one:

Coverage for contraceptives is like fire insurance that covers arson committed by the policyholder.

That's the most nonsensical non sequitur in that whole article, which is really saying something.

I recently went to a part of the world where malaria is common. I got a scrip from a travel doctor and was able to get malaria pills that would have ordinarily cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars at a huge discount, thanks to my insurance. My boyfriend got a smaller discount via his policy (which he bought on the individual market). It was our choice to go hang out in a part of the world where mosquitos are more likely to kill you, but insurance covered it. -- sofar at January 6, 2014 2:47 PM

There is a problem in the argument. You seem to think that because you are not paying directly you aren't responsible for the costs associated with your treatment.

I'm a single adult male. I have worn prescription lenses since I was in my low teens if not earlier. (30+ years.) In all that time I have as yet to dump less than $150 for glasses and exam whether insured or uninsured. Take a guess why. The optometrists adjust costs on the paperwork. I go to the local shops that advertise quick service and dumped the insurance. The insurance was not worth it for a regular cost.

So in your case, going to malaria country, means that you need an anti-malaria drug. From a quick google, most of them are quinine derivatives. Quinine was created in the 50's. Wal-Mart sells quinine derivatives for $4 a prescription. And that price is generally the same or lower in the countries you went to.

So saying that insurance let you down is a fallacy. You need to be a responsible consumer.

I'm not saying that emergencies don't happen. But I know a lady that passed out in a pharmacy trying to get an asthma inhaler. She was hit with hundreds in charges. But if she had gone to urgent care center, paid $50-75 and probably would have gotten a scrip; snd never would have seen an EMT.

ACOG (the group for OB/Gyn doctors), issued an official statement that birth control should basically be over-the-counter, which it should be (like the rest of the world). Hopefully market forces can then take over and make it as inexpensive as it is other places. Then you can use it for any medical indication/personal reason you want. But I doubt that will be happening any time soon.

And I think the ‘male’ pill being discussed is for sexual performance (i.e. Viagra et al), which, of course, is covered by insurance. You know, cause’ pregnancy is a, um, choice but not giving boner pills to old guys is, er, necessary. (/sarc)

As for the male contraceptive pill, that would be an uphill battle since 1) it is easy to stop an egg from maturing but hard to stop millions of sperm, 2) you can easily manipulate the endocrine system to a state of 'don't mature eggs' fairly easily without going outside of normal physiologic parameters but it is hard to stop testosterone pathways without messing up a lot of biochemical pathways that make a man a man and 3) there is too much easy money to be made with female birth control so why bother spending the billions to research something for men? Spoilers: there are some great possibilities coming down the line but they will only be available outside the US or as a reversible semi-surgical procedure.

One more thing. I have to wonder: If the most popular contraceptive in America, right now, happened to be a pill for men, would the insurance debate even be happening? I suspect: No, it would be covered.

Not that it will ever be the most POPULAR method, per se.

From August 2008:

http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2008/08/guys-on-pill.html

Last quarter:

"....If it is indeed true that the market for the male pill, say, is insufficiently large, the reason might be the simple fact that we already have the female pill. There is less need in general for additional forms of contraception. But note that the recent Bush administration attempts to equate the birth control pill and the intra-uterine devices with abortion might change that comfortable status quo. A male pill would do the prevention inside the male body and no stretch of pro-life imagination could make that into abortion!

"Wouldn't it be weird if that was what made the male birth control pill a reality?"

As for the male contraceptive pill, that would be an uphill battle since 1) it is easy to stop an egg from maturing but hard to stop millions of sperm,
___________________________

I've heard that plenty of times. As I said, I don't expect a male BC pill to be anywhere as popular or as effective as, say, a foolproof barrier method such as Vasalgel.

But the real question is, how many men really want new male methods - especially those men who are not monogamous but are conscientious enough to use condoms? How many men are going to use TWO methods at once? If a man refuses to use condoms, what are the odds he'd use anything even more intrusive?

I predict that for decades, the only real willing customers will be men whose wives can't use hormonal methods, plus celebs and other rich men surrounded by gold-diggers.

"If the most popular contraceptive in America, right now, happened to be a pill for men, would the insurance debate even be happening?" Lenona

Of course it would IF and ONLY IF there was no analog for women It has nothing to do with popularity. But that is only one of several arguments to be had on contraceptives, and I was certainly pushing an amusing one upthread, but it isn't actually the most important one.

The basic argument is, who is responsible for creating a new human life [ie. pregnancy]

It is THAT/those person[s] who says yes or no to creating one, whatever method is used.

Remind me why this act or the prevention of it, is in itself a health issue that you would use "health care" for?

The whole argument about "Besides, birth control is a lot cheaper for society than babies are" is, while true, a complete strawman in this case.
That is because it requires the intent and execution of someone that by association doesn't care. Ie. someone that will make a child that will be a net drag on society.

In the "cheaper for society" argument, the very people with the intent to have/not have children that they are planning to have/not have [or at least that they will pay for] are the people most likely to provide THEIR OWN contraception method. Without any perk from the govt.

Are you seriously telling me that a woman who has 5 kids by 3 different guys is ACTUALLY going to take the time and trouble to take a pill every day without fail? PLUS if she was low income, there is prolly already a program to provide the Pill to her without fee. The Free Pill as a societal good is rubbish. I believe free condoms on the other hand, have a bit of a proven record, except in cities where they will decide you are turning tricks if you have them.

Another point in all this is pricepoint. the lowly condom is only needed IF you are getting lucky. That's why they call it getting lucky. If you are lucky, it might be a bit more expensive, if you aren't very lucky, might be dirt cheap over time. It's entirely situational, and in any event, ENTIRELY YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

as it SHOULD be. Because this is NOT a matter of health, this is a matter of prevention. People who won't take care of it themselves anyway, won't do so if it's "free" either.

OTOH, IF there is a medical condition that a woman would NEED the pill for, that is and should already be covered by insurance...

Because insurance covers when your body is broken... and that is the ONLY reason viagra is covered, because it is used to treat the body being broken, just like a headache.

Birth itself is an unusual situation for insurance too... because noting is broken, but it could be complicated... it is voluntary, but once started, has many important implications.

Except for the part where it doesn't apply to me, so explain why my premium rises to cover it? NOT as part of a pool, but a benefit directly applicable to everyone, except only applying to a certain subset of people, physically.

As an aside on the male pill? The world would beat a path to your freakin' door... only stupid guys wouldn't use it, if it was reversible, and fairly foolproof.

What we have there is a problem in FDA approval. You see, it costs a BILLION dollars to get a drug approved, so you have to be sure it will be profitable to decide to fund that. And THAT is only after you find a method that works.
This is the problem with RSUIG... you only have to do it every 10 years, so there is no profit in it that you would use to pay for the approval.

Even IF they ever get it approved in India, it would not be profitable to the US, because the FDA would have to have a new set of trials. It is not assured that it will get passed in India either because there is no profit in it there.

Far as I know, no other method even shows progress, because there is not natural state except old age where a man doesn't produce sperm... while for woman, the pill is a study in tricking the body into a different natural state that it already goes into.

So, where does this leave us? A very expensive perk for a small group of people, that will benefit drug companies, that everyone else pays for. Without so much as a "Thank you for your contribution, comrade."

This doesn't begin to cover the data collection that will go on.

The "well they cover Viagra!" straw man is particularly silly. People who religiously object to contraceptives do so because they believe the prevention of pregnancy during sex is sinful. Most believe that methods such as the pill or Plan B, which allow the union of sperm and egg but not implantation and pregnancy, are abortifacients and sinful. And you have zero evidence that male contraceptives would meet no objection - quite the opposite, vasectomy and condoms have long been opposed by at least the Catholic Church.

Most mainstream religions have no problem with old men having sex with their wives, so why they would consider Viagra and The Pill equivalent is confounding. This is what they believe - you don't have to agree with it but it's logically consistent in their frame of belief and it's the height of hubris to lecture them on what they should believe.

Anyway it totally misses the point of the debate. The question is not "should it be legal for people to purchase birth control". Only the most hard core would suggest making The Pill illegal. Nor is it really about "access" to birth control - anybody with employer provided health care can reasonably afford basic birth control.

The question is whether one private organization should be FORCED, at threat of legal consequence, to purchase something they are morally opposed to from another private organization. If you can't see the distinction, you're not arguing in good faith (no pun intended).

An interesting post I saw some time ago about a male birth control pill went something like this:

Ladies, imagine that there was a birth control pill for men that you couldn't tell if they were talking it. How many of you would trust a guy who said he was "on the pill" and not also use some other protection like a condom or the pill yourself? All the guys who don't want to wear condoms now have another reason to not need to wear one.

Not one responded that they would forgo other measures.

SO many are missing the point with a male pill. The market isn't men who want women who trust them. " How many of you would trust a guy who said he was "on the pill""
The market is men who don't trust women, and don't want to have a fight over it.
Don't trust a women who say they are on the pill, when you know she wants a baby and might "forget". Start wearing a condom and accusations will fly. Now men have a solution. Women didn't have to trust men, now men wouldn't have to trust women.

Two points

One, you cant protest providing a healthcare plan with provides BC on "moral" grounds.

Healthcare contributions are SALARY, they are PAYMENT for work rendered.

If a company can claim i t is immoral to expect them to provide BC thru a third party insurance program, why cant they claim it is immoral for their employee to spend any money they eran to buy BC?

Two, they should be attacking it on the grounds that it is illegal to force one party to provide a second party goods at no cost.

Most of this crap comes up because of what people have been led to believe is an appropriate use of insurance for health purposes.

For a number of reasons, it has become sacrosanct to treat health insurance as this kind of 'one size fits all' coverage, regardless of what actual value it may have for the insured.

Ideally, health insurance should look a lot like auto insurance. It should cover unexpected and catastrophic events, and leave the day to day maintenance to the individual.

It's possible (as some would argue) that we need to allow for those who can't afford the cost of maintenance. I don't actually have a huge issue with that, as long as it's treated correctly, as a benefit for those who actually need it.

To go with the current topic, why should all members of the insurance pool pay for birth control for those who can afford to pay themselves (hypothetical male or female)?

Simply put, I don't see the value in massacreing the entire concept of health insurance to cover the stragglers. It would be a better use of resources to simply cover th stragglers.

You want real reform?

Do this:

Decouple insurance from employment (give the tax credits employers get to the employee, and let them choose their plan).

Allow all insurance companies to offer their product across state lines (competition).

Treat health insurance like auto insurance, cover unexpected and catastrophic events, leave the rest to the insured. This includes birth control.

If needed, provide assistance to those who truly can't afford it.

@lujip Your morals ar different than theirs, doesn't discount moral argument.

#2. If it is salary, then the company should/would have full choices as to what form it takes, how much is offered and when it is given out. Employees can either take it or leave the company.
#3. The laughable thing with this is, it is not the employers or employees who are making a stink about this, both are pretty happy with it (with a few exceptions) but rather a handful of uninvolved people trying to force their "morals" on others.

Lenona, I would bet you fifty bucks that a male pill will not be approved by the FDA in the next ten years. There are too many political groups arrayed against it. And that's independent of what demand might be.

#2. If it is salary, then the company should/would have full choices as to what form it takes, how much is offered and when it is given out. Employees can either take it or leave the company.

So then the company I work for, finding porn illegal can spy on me, and decide to pay me less the amount I spend on porn?

No, we have contracts, I provide labor you provide payment. No if the contract states no BC and I sign it, thats on me. But you cant move the goal posts after the fact. If one of the options for healthcare plans involves BC the company cant arbitrarily decide to discover a moral objection.

The company has no right to dictate how I live my life or how I spend the money they paid me for my services

So in your case, going to malaria country, means that you need an anti-malaria drug. From a quick google, most of them are quinine derivatives. Quinine was created in the 50's. Wal-Mart sells quinine derivatives for $4 a prescription. And that price is generally the same or lower in the countries you went to.

Quinine isn't generally prescribed as a malarial prophylactic. You use it after you get malaria. I wanted to avoid malaria, not treat it.

You're right that the cost of my drugs was probably being inflated by insurance, but, based on a Google search, I'd have paid $250 in cash for it at WalGreens. I never said "insurance let me down." My main point was that insurance covers all sorts of "optional" things besides birth control. And yet people get hung on on BC. And that we need to take a close look at all the non-catastrophic things insurance covers.

You are the one who is moving the goal posts not them.
SO unless your contract explicitly states your insurance pays for BC, you are in the wrong.

You're right that the cost of my drugs was probably being inflated by insurance, but, based on a Google search, I'd have paid $250 in cash for it at WalGreens. -- sofar at January 7, 2014 10:56 AM

Well I know of at least one drug that sells at Wal-Mart for $25 per package. The exact same package is $85 at CVS and $76 at Kroger. That's without insurance.

But there are so many "maintenance" drugs that probably should be paid for by the user, just like they car owner pays for the oil changes.

Lenona, I would bet you fifty bucks that a male pill will not be approved by the FDA in the next ten years. There are too many political groups arrayed against it. And that's independent of what demand might be.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at January 7, 2014 7:02 AM
____________________________________

Er, you seem to be changing your stance - you said previously: "I can assure you, with 100% certainty, that the male Pill will never be legalized in the U.S."

Leaving aside those religious groups who have ALWAYS been opposed to birth control of any kind, which political groups are you talking about - and where is your proof?

Offhand, I can't think of even one. (Aside from maybe some conservative groups who are afraid of seeing the birth rate drop even further among certain Americans.)

There are those who claim that men would be only too glad to pay $1,000 or so for Vasalgel (again, it lasts for 10 years unless reversed) but there are plenty of men who say they won't have anything to do with any invasive male contraceptive. As doctors say: "Men don't like having their genitals messed with." If men can't be bothered to contradict that - loudly - whose fault is that? And why wouldn't those with the most money to lose balk, for YEARS, at helping men get access to something that just might not turn a profit - until they can see some hard proof that it WILL turn a nice profit?

So, as Lenona has pointed out, there actually IS an American Version of RISUG, that I hadn't heard about, since they got the intellectual property license for the US a few years ago...

go here, read up on the info, and maybe throw a few bucks to the foundation... Far as I can tell they are legit, though human trials of Vasalgel are some years off. [Currently in animal trials] Those trials and such are the ONLY way to get FDA approval. Don't know how they are going to fund all this, but it's worth a shot. Put your money where your mouth is gentlemen, even if it won't be available for us, rather for our children.

http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/

Thanks, SwissArmyD. I live for the day, maybe two years after the new methods arrive, when we get to hear doctors tell of just how many men came in for the procedures - and which men. (As in, age, race, politics, educational level, etc.)

You are the one who is moving the goal posts not them.
SO unless your contract explicitly states your insurance pays for BC, you are in the wrong. - Joe j

I see so your employment contract specifically states under what conditions, each and every single myriad possibility you can be admitted to the hospital? Must be the size of a phone book. Case to post a pic so we can verify?