![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archershipsSomeone posted the following to the ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
reasonablewomen community:
I'm not a member of the community, so I can't respond there. But this is how I would've responded:
People have wildly varying risk preferences. Some people leap out of airplanes. Others never leave rooms that smell faintly of cabbage, and spend their days typing feverish screeds on livejournal.
* cough *
Differn't strokes for differn't folks, you know?
If I leaned toward the cabbage-scented end of the risk spectrum, I might buy an insurance plan that covers everything -- dental, birth control, viagra -- and pay a higher premium for the privilege.
If I spend my weekends jumping out of airplanes, on the other hand, I might choose to buy insurance that only covers unexpected, catastrophic injuries or illnesses (and therefore has a low premium) and pay for everyday medical expenses (like birth control, and Viagra) out of pocket.
The reason many insurance companies probably don't cover birth control is because, as the article noted, 98% of women will buy it. Insurance companies make money by investing the insurance premiums. Their profit is the difference between that investment income and the amount they have to pay out in claims. If they have to pay out to almost everyone who buys the insurance, then insurance ceases to be a hedge against risk, and becomes a de facto pre-payment system. And they must charge a significantly higher premium to cover it.
Viagra, on the other hand, is not purchased by most men, and when they do buy it, they don't buy it every month. Therefore, more insurance companies can cover it, and make money without significantly raising premiums.
If Congress succeeds in making contraceptive coverage mandatory, it will raise the minimum price that all insurance companies must charge. People will no longer be able to buy just insurance -- they will have to buy into a package that bundles a de facto prepayment plan with true insurance.
I, for one, would rather have the choice, rather than Congress making the choice for me.
Cause sometimes cheapassery overwhelms risk aversion, even if one's room does smell of cabbage.
reasonablewomen community:
Viagra But Not Birth Control? Tell Insurance Companies to Cover Contraceptives!
There you go. Read the information. Sign the petition. Your future depends on it.
I'm not a member of the community, so I can't respond there. But this is how I would've responded:
People have wildly varying risk preferences. Some people leap out of airplanes. Others never leave rooms that smell faintly of cabbage, and spend their days typing feverish screeds on livejournal.
* cough *
Differn't strokes for differn't folks, you know?
If I leaned toward the cabbage-scented end of the risk spectrum, I might buy an insurance plan that covers everything -- dental, birth control, viagra -- and pay a higher premium for the privilege.
If I spend my weekends jumping out of airplanes, on the other hand, I might choose to buy insurance that only covers unexpected, catastrophic injuries or illnesses (and therefore has a low premium) and pay for everyday medical expenses (like birth control, and Viagra) out of pocket.
The reason many insurance companies probably don't cover birth control is because, as the article noted, 98% of women will buy it. Insurance companies make money by investing the insurance premiums. Their profit is the difference between that investment income and the amount they have to pay out in claims. If they have to pay out to almost everyone who buys the insurance, then insurance ceases to be a hedge against risk, and becomes a de facto pre-payment system. And they must charge a significantly higher premium to cover it.
Viagra, on the other hand, is not purchased by most men, and when they do buy it, they don't buy it every month. Therefore, more insurance companies can cover it, and make money without significantly raising premiums.
If Congress succeeds in making contraceptive coverage mandatory, it will raise the minimum price that all insurance companies must charge. People will no longer be able to buy just insurance -- they will have to buy into a package that bundles a de facto prepayment plan with true insurance.
I, for one, would rather have the choice, rather than Congress making the choice for me.
Cause sometimes cheapassery overwhelms risk aversion, even if one's room does smell of cabbage.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 04:24 pm (UTC)But you're making the same point I was going to. There's health insurance and health coverage and the article combines the two throughout. I understand how it makes no sense for health insurance to cover contraceptives, but I see how for lots of people it would be nice to have a health plan that included birth control.
That being said if a health plan covers prescription drugs like Viagra then yeah, I don't see how birth control would not be included there. But not insurance companies. I doubt there are insurance comapanies that are covering Virgra.
Then again maybe I'm confused. I don't have either. Forget birth control. I would love to just get some new glasses.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 04:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 06:16 pm (UTC)Insurance should never cover something like birth control. It'd be nice if health plans covered birth control, but not something that the government needs to get involved in.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 04:43 pm (UTC)No, the article said that 98% of women use some form of birth control at some point during their childbearing years
Okay, but does that change the point that many more women will buy birth control than men will buy Viagra? And that, as a result, it's much more costly to cover birth control than it is to cover Viagra?
and that prescription birth control should be covered under prescription drug plans.
What's the distinction? Quoting from the article:
Congress is sitting on a bill that would require health insurers that cover prescription drugs to cover prescription contraceptives equally.
How else can it be read, other than that they want to force insurance companies to cover birth control, if they cover prescription drugs at all?
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 04:54 pm (UTC)Condoms, diaphragms, IUDs, spermicides, et cetera.
However, yeah, hormonal birth control for the ladies is far more widespread than Viagra for the menfolks. I'm thinking that, in general, there's more folks that ovulate and don't want to get pregnant than there's folks with erectile dysfunction.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 05:41 pm (UTC)(Note, that it's a generous estimation of the average Viagra user's sex drive. The GSS indicates that most U.S.adults are having sex about once a week—58 episodes per year to be exact. In Smith's own analysis, titled "American Sexual Behavior", it appears that this number has been fairly consistent since 1988. In that case, 30 pills will last for about 7 months, a monthly cost of less than $20.00 month )
I don't know (and I'd be willing to bet good money that you don't know, either) what the actual ratio of prescription-birth-control purchasers to Viagra purchasers is, but I doubt we'd be talking about a hugely significant disparity between the two costs.
Yes, you're right, I don't have the numbers. What do you consider a hugely significant disparity?
Do you support forcing insurance company's to pay for birth control pills?
no subject
Date: 2006-05-08 01:30 pm (UTC)And how would you feel if conservatives passed laws that forbade any insurance company from covering contraceptives?
no subject
Date: 2006-05-08 03:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-08 06:40 pm (UTC)Actually, the Feds prevent doctors from treating AIDS and other diseases quite frequently. What do you think the FDA does? If a doctor wants to try out a new AIDS drug that the FDA doesn't approve of, the doctor's out of luck, unless he wants to risk his license and jailtime.
Again, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to regulate the insurance industry so that if they provide coverage for some sorts of reproductive-lifestyle-enhancement drugs for men(like Viagra), they also offer birth-control pills for women.
Well, of course you don't think it's unreasonable. You want women to have access to contraceptives (which is, by itself, a worthy goal, I agree). Where we differ is that you think that the rightness of your cause gives you moral authority to override the preferences of the people who disagree with you. Rather than allow people to decide for themselves what level of coverage they want (and to pay for it), you want to force everyone to have the same level of coverage that you think they should have. And I see this attitude as no different than that of Republicans who want to force everyone to have the level of coverage _they_ think we should have.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-08 08:57 pm (UTC)I also disagree with the notion that being sick or disabled gives you a moral claim on someone else's resources. Yes, getting cancer sucks. But I don't see how that gives me (or my agent's) the right to force someone else, at gunpoint, to fork over money to pay for my treatment.
I suspect that these are fundamental differences in values and risk preferences. So I don't have much hope that I will persuade you (and vice versa).
Having trouble understanding this.
Date: 2006-05-12 11:21 pm (UTC)I don't see it as rational. I see it as causing more inefficient and making the cost of everything higher for people like me. I make approximately $24 K a year, I do not have children, and I absolutely do not want to pay for health insurance. Being relatively healthy, I choose not to get it.
I am especially concerned that if health care were subsidized by my taxes, that I've got to start paying for my next door neighbor who broke his wrist trying to skateboard a la Jackass style. What stops Mr. X or Mrs. Y from engaging in riskier behavior, now that their health insurance costs are subsidized by the rest of us?
I say go ahead and do what you want, and pay the price. Otherwise, if I'm paying for someone else's health insurance, I should be able to dictate what is allowed for coverage.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 05:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-08 01:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 06:10 pm (UTC)As a woman that has been in the work force, and in sured for over a decade, (I use a diaphragm, by the way) I'd much rather see birthcontrol pills covered, and reflected in *my* insurance costs, than the cost of an unwanted pregnancy or childbirth. Either that, or maybe abortion options should be covered.
Another element that hasn't entered the discussion yet is that our country is moving further and further towards being anti-choice. There are movments to allowing pharmacists to refuse to sell birthcontrol pills because of THEIR PERSONAL moral standing.
Think about the people at the top of the food chain in the pharmaceutical industry, insurance industry and the government.
Largely weathly, conservative, white men....I'd bet money they are mostly right-winged christians.
Another point I want to make is that birth control pills are often used for other, non-contraceptive, uses. They are necessary tools to help women control hormone fluctuations that affect their health
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 06:23 pm (UTC)Also - insure the sound of sarcasm with the suggestion that abortion should be covered. I'm pro-choice, but our country isn't ready for that conversation yet. I was mostly using that wee sentence to help make a point, but realized it came off wrong.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-08 01:35 am (UTC)Well, there are insurance policies that cover contraceptives. If you want to buy such a plan, you can do so. Likewise, if I _don't_ want to buy such a plan, I can do so. If these people have their way, however, I won't have that choice any more.
By the way, do you think that insurance co. execs aren't aware that extending contraceptive coverage could prevent unwanted childbirth? If covering birth control pills actually did cost less than covering unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, then why wouldn't they cover them?
There are movments to allowing pharmacists to refuse to sell birthcontrol pills because of THEIR PERSONAL moral standing.
Is this a bad thing? If you wanted to refuse service to say, a Klan member, for example, would you not wish to have the right to do so?
Now of course, you could point out that pharmacists and physicians have a legal monopoly on medicine distribution. And I would agree that this is a problem. But I would argue that the proper solution is to eliminate the monopoly physicians and pharmacists have on dispensing medication, not to force them to dispense medications for purposes they believe violate their ethical beliefs.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-09 09:47 am (UTC)If you wanted to refuse service to say, a black man, for example, would you not wish to have that right to do so? Of course not. More on that in a bit.
As a pharmacist, the issue of BC coverage vs Viagra coverage draws little more than a shrug. Contracts are signed by employers with those who underwrite Rx benefits; some cover this, some cover that. If you don't like what is covered, it's the fault of your employer for signing the contract which excluded them, not the insuror.
As for not dispensing drugs which violate personal beliefs, one ventures into ugly territory. Ethically, if there's no medical reason why I shouldn't dispense the ordered meds, I should dispense. If I think the treatment is going to endanger someone's soul, I'm reaching out of the practice of pharmacy and into philosophy or theology. Now some may argue theology belongs in all aspects of our lives, but the patient came in requesting my services as a pharmacist, not a theologian.
I was never a professional soldier because I find the work they are often called on to do morally repugnant, ie., killing people or facilitating the killing of people. True, there are some jobs which I could have held which would have avoided the ugly task, but there's no denying the prime directive of soldiers is warfare and killing. In a similar vein, if one finds the dispensing of certain meds morally repugnant, one needs to find another profession besides pharmacy. While one might find work that avoided dispensing Plan B or BC pills, they shouldn't be (and cannot legally be in some states) removed from or not ordered when needed by a retail pharmacy. Saying, "I personally don't sell those" while cashing the check of a company which does sell them is hardly taking the moral high road.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-09 12:58 pm (UTC)Of course I would. I would like to legally be able to refuse service to anyone, regardless of reason. Now, of course, I don't think you _should_ refuse service to someone just because he was a black man. And if I were a manager at a pharamacy who found an employee who had done that, I would fire them. But if they wanted to go start "Whitey Pharmacy" and serve only white people, I don't think they should be prevented by law from doing so.
In a similar vein, if one finds the dispensing of certain meds morally repugnant, one needs to find another profession besides pharmacy.
Why not leave it up to the pharmacy owners? If they're willing to hire you, even if you won't dispense BC, then that's their business. As a customer, if you don't like the policy, you're also free to go somewhere else.
I was never a professional soldier because I find the work they are often called on to do morally repugnant, ie., killing people or facilitating the killing of people.
We frequently have to make tradeoffs. It's rare in the world to be able to work somewhere that aligns perfectly with your own moral compass. For example, some units in the military commit torture. If I were a soldier, I might well be willing to kill on the battlefield, but refuse to torture prisoners. Sure, I could leave, but then only those willing to commit torture would remain. By staying, I might be able to prevent it, or eventually rise through the ranks to ban it completely.
Or suppose I'm an anti-abortion doctor. I might be willing to work at a hospital where abortions are performed, without being willing to perform abortions myself. I may feel that the good I do overall outweighs the harm done by taking some abortion money.
Given that you must often make tradeoffs, I would rather those tradeoffs be made from the free choices of employers, employees, and customers in the marketplace, rather than dictaed from above by government decree.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 01:36 am (UTC)The reasons for civil rights laws are well known, however, and I trust you are aware of them, but I'm also assuming you are too young to recall "Whites Only" bathrooms, waiting areas, etc. I am not. I can recall a polarized, intolerant society, with "Jim Crow" laws in place to keep minorities powerless and "in their place." While you may believe the "goodness of man" will suffice to change these things, it didn't. Even with civil rights laws enacted, I can recall the governor of Alabama defying federal troops enforcing desegregation.
Again, in theory, the "goodness of man" would keep the strong and many from exploiting the weak and few, but that's not workable in practice. When the majority found it okay to not service a segment of society based upon color, the majority, via laws and intimidation, kept those of the unfavored color from advancing in society. Basically, the strong stayed strong and the weak stayed weak. It's human nature to not give away ones power. It's wonderful, though naive, to believe the "moral compass" of mankind will somehow guide the strong to share power and resources with the weak and to assume that given the right "moral compass" the lion will lay down with the lamb.
Lions eat lambs. Always will in this world. If society wishes to contain both lions and lambs, society needs to make arrangements to protect the lambs rather than allow the lions to have "free choices" concerning their behavior toward lambs. This is obvious to the lambs, so I am assuming you are a lion here. I would suggest you try living in Japan, if you never have, where you would (again, assuming you aren't Japanese) experience life as an unfavored minority and see if your opinion changes.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 09:32 pm (UTC)If the majority opposed anti-discrimination laws, how did they get passed?
Note that "Jim Crow" laws and public schools were both controlled by the government. And I heartily agree that government laws and institutions should be race-neutral.
As for private businesses, in the absence of laws preventing it, I would've predicted that businesses that refused to serve or hire blacks would've eventually been driven out by business that were color-neutral, because the color-neutral business would've been able to make more profit (bigger customer base) and hire better employees (bigger labor pool).
Lions eat lambs. Always will in this world.
So what makes you think that the lions won't get themselves elected to office? If citizens are stupid, greedy, racists what kind of politician do you think they will elect?
I would suggest you try living in Japan, if you never have, where you would (again, assuming you aren't Japanese) experience life as an unfavored minority and see if your opinion changes.
And I would suggest you live in Zimbabwe, where the government can sieze control of your property at will and see if your opinion changes.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 12:15 am (UTC)Sir, you need a history lesson. Recently Rosa Parks passed away. Ms. Parks chose to make herself available to fight the laws which held that black folks needed to go the back of the bus. Those laws were made by officials elected by the majority, however, the SCOTUS found them unconstitutional and they were struck. THAT is how discriminatory laws were struck down; it was the SCOTUS against the majority opinion, but for the Constitution which struck those laws. Because of the massive protests against the unjust situations nationwide, JFK started things and LBJ hammered Congress until the Civil Rights Act (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm) was passed. Along with it came the Voting Rights Act and several other pieces of legislation which enabled minorities to have a chance in this country. I suggest you read the link and MUCH more history before you embarass yourself further.
It's called "checks and balances" in our system. Sure, a stupid racist majority can elect whomever they wish and get the legislature to enact laws they wish passed to suppress the minority and the court system upholds the Constitution and the rights of the minority to equal treatment in society and removes those laws which violate those rights. This balance is the core beauty of our country. The fact I seem to have to explain this to you, given your silly question above, speaks to your lack of thoughtfulness in what you're asking or a lack of knowledge of our system of government. I suspect a little of both, actually.
Sadly, sir, I have no time to be a Middle School Civics teacher. Good day.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 01:08 am (UTC)Yes, decades after they were first passed, and only after riots in the street. Personally, I would've preferred that the state _not have a say in the first place_.
Sadly, sir, I have no time to be a Middle School Civics teacher. Good day.
Gee, thanks. Patronizing insults -- the sure sign of a sound argument.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 10:16 am (UTC)Sigh. Many of those laws concerned voting, public transportation on publicly owned buses, public restrooms, public education, public water fountains, and things of that nature which the state develops, pays for, and naturally regulates via various regulations and laws. Let me repeat: READ SOME HISTORY! If you're suggesting the state, via elected officials locally and on up the ladder, shouldn't regulate public areas they pay for and public activities they sanction such as voting, who should?
For example, Ms. Rosa Parks was arrested for violating a city ordinance in Montgomery Alabama which held that black people must give up their seats to white people and move to the rear of the bus when asked. The city, which owned and operated the buses as a PUBLIC SERVICE to the citizens of Montgomery, had a right and duty to establish some standards of conduct on those buses. Ordinances controlling the behavior of those riding mass transit STILL exist today and should, of course.
Your suggestion that the state "not have a say in the first place" shows either your ignorance of history or that you're an anarchist.
As for my "sound argument," I don't require ANY argument currently. We are still in the education phase of this discussion where you are concerned.
First, I found a discussion of the "unfairness" of insurors because "this is covered and that isn't on my prescription drug plan" which is simply a matter of the contract signed by the employer and not the insuror's "unfairness." That was education, not argument.
Then you spoke up that one should have the right to refuse service to whomever and the government should not be involved. Your reasoning was those "color neutral" businesses would drive the others out of business and that reasoning is TOTALLY ignorant of the social climate of that era which I attempted to explain via a lions and lambs analogy and a suggestion for you to travel to Japan. Those suggestions met with the stunning,"If the majority opposed anti-discrimination laws, how did they get passed?" which yet again showed a TOTAL ignorance of history and the civil rights movement. So I explained, via the example of Ms. Parks, what happened and how the SCOTUS overturned many discriminatory laws and Congress passed various civil rights laws.
At which point you said, "Note that "Jim Crow" laws and public schools were both controlled by the government. And I heartily agree that government laws and institutions should be race-neutral." yet in your next post you contradict yourself openly by saying "Personally, I would've preferred that the state _not have a say in the first place_."
Again, the laws Ms. Parks defied were CITY ORDINANCES relating to PUBLIC BUSES which you FIRST "heartily agree.... should be race-neutral" and THEN say you "would've preferred that the state _not have a say in the first place_"
I've no need for an argument here. You're arguing with yourself. :-)
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 05:41 pm (UTC)If I spend my weekends jumping out of airplanes, on the other hand, I might choose to buy insurance that only covers unexpected, catastrophic injuries or illnesses (and therefore has a low premium)
I used to spend most of my weekends jumping out of airplanes. And although I've never had life insurance, a friend of mine who used to skydive even more than me tried to get a life insurance plan and the premium was ridiculously high... until he started lying and telling them he'd stopped skydiving. Of course, I guess health plans probably look at that less but if they cover accidental injuries and you lead a risky lifestyle than it's probably pretty tough to find one that has a low premium. Just thought I'd add that, as a sort of "ironic twist" to your main point here! I don't think it affects much of what you're saying though.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-08 01:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 06:25 pm (UTC)Being susceptable to getting pregnant when having sex is not an illness, infirmity or ailment. Its whats supposed to happen if your healthy.
Not being able to get an erection is a medical problem...its not supposed to happen.
What if the arguement was that since insurance covers cancer it should cover birth? Erectile problems are a medical disorder no different than cancer, or diabetes or anything else... how chicks somehow link Viagra to birth control is beyond me. Thats like saying that if insurance covers uterine cancer it should cover condoms as well.
I suppose that if theres a medical need to avoid getting pregnant (versus an economic, religous, or 'convenience' issue) then it makes sense. Otherwise, why should insurance cover it?
The whole Viagra/birth control pills things is a smokescreen...the two have nothing to do with each other.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-07 12:18 am (UTC)Insurance does cover birth. Childbirth, also fits the same catagory as birth control, and "is not an illness, infirmity or ailment. It's what's supposed to happen if you're healthy" ...yet insurance covers routinely for the medical expenses of healthy, normal childbirth as well as for those with complications.
That's the economic benefit for insurance companies to cover for birth control: it's cheaper than paying out for prenatal care and childbirth.
Not being able to get an erection is a medical problem...its not supposed to happen.
Sometimes, sure. Sometimes, though, it seems like it's a "medical problem" in the same sense that shyness is now "social anxiety disorder". Meaning, "we can make money selling pills for this."
Also, birth control is often used for more than just to prevent pregnancy, to correct other uterine and hormonal medical problems, like endometriosis. I'm not sure, though, it's possible some insurance plans already cover for these uses.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-08 12:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-08 06:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 04:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 07:59 pm (UTC)I'd much rather pay for insurance that covers birth control, allowing women more leeway to choose not to get pregnant, than pay for insurance that pays for 80-year-old men to keep it up. Sadly, I never got to vote on that one way or another. :)
Now, what happens if more pregnancies arise due to men being sexually active later in life (presumably with younger, still fertile women...) thanks to Viagra being readily available and paid for by insurance, while the woman's bc is not only not covered by insurance but also not so readily available, since pharmacists can choose not to dispense it if their religion opposes it? It's not really economically beneficial for the insurance companies to cover increased numbers of pregnancies and childbirths.
I disagree with
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 08:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-14 06:30 pm (UTC)a) Almost all forms of birth control that exist are specifically for use by the female partner. The one non-surgical form of control used by men are condomns.
b) Women not getting pregnant is a financial benefit to medial insurance companies. A couple with medical coverage and no kids that use birth control will cost less to the insurance company than a couple that uses insufficient birth control and gets pregnant.
(Hint: The hospital bills for my child's birth totalled TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. We paid a total of a $100 premium)
c) Birth control pills are not used sole for birth control! Many women go on birth control pills to treat medical issues with their mensturation cycle (i.e. intense cramping pain, possible cancer risks, etc). So it is irresponsible for a health insurance company to just refuse to cover birth control pills at all. At the very least, there should be exceptions for the women who are prescribed it for alternative reasons.
d) All other non-surgical forms of medical care are available without a prescription, though not necessarily a doctors office visit.
e) Birth control pills are quite expensive and will stay that way because they are hormonal compounds.
So there's a lot of freedom issues with this topic. I'm not a fan of compulsory coverage but clearly women get the short end of the stick in the deal.
I will agree that comparing Viagra and Birth Control pills is misleading since they are opposites of each other. But I see understand why the topic is brought out, because it does come off pretty sexist and insulting to women...