I have a hard time mandating birth control for health care coverage. I suppose you might claim that an ounce of prevention will save a pound of cure - but healthy, thoughtful people - will prevent on their own. Insurance does not need to do that for people - they tend to take care of things like that, themselves.
The benefits are being over-sold, here......
Moreover, the costs could likely be shouldered by consumers at considerably lower cost.
No - I don't support mandating ED meds, either. At some point - there's a difference between saving lives, and sustaining a specific "quality" of life -- and I think minimum coverage regulations should focus on the former, not the later.
BearMtnHIB wrote: Yes- require all insurance to cover birth control- that won't raise the cost of insurance for us.
HUH.
What ever happened to the idea that insurance was for covering those catastrophic costs- not the everyday costs like checkups, pap smears and birth control.
I need a car everyday too- can Obama and the progressives start paying for that too?
Why should my insurance premiums pay for your erectile dysfunction?
Well if you look at it that way, then why do I have to pay for YOUR choice to put a big dick in the White House?
BearMtnHIB wrote: Yes- require all insurance to cover birth control- that won't raise the cost of insurance for us.
HUH.
What ever happened to the idea that insurance was for covering those catastrophic costs- not the everyday costs like checkups, pap smears and birth control.
I need a car everyday too- can Obama and the progressives start paying for that too?
Why should my insurance premiums pay for your erectile dysfunction?
Well if you look at it that way, then why do I have to pay for YOUR choice to put a big dick in the White House?
I didn't vote to put Bush 2 in the White House. Why did you?
BearMtnHIB wrote: Yes- require all insurance to cover birth control- that won't raise the cost of insurance for us.
HUH.
What ever happened to the idea that insurance was for covering those catastrophic costs- not the everyday costs like checkups, pap smears and birth control.
I need a car everyday too- can Obama and the progressives start paying for that too?
Why should my insurance premiums pay for your erectile dysfunction?
Well if you look at it that way, then why do I have to pay for YOUR choice to put a big dick in the White House?
I didn't vote to put Bush 2 in the White House. Why did you?
Have you been in a coma? Wake up!! it is 2011 and OBAMA has been the President for over 2 1/1 years. No wonder you guys don't know how to vote. You don't even know who the President is!
bailey bud wrote: I have a hard time mandating birth control for health care coverage. I suppose you might claim that an ounce of prevention will save a pound of cure - but healthy, thoughtful people - will prevent on their own. Insurance does not need to do that for people - they tend to take care of things like that, themselves.
The benefits are being over-sold, here......
Moreover, the costs could likely be shouldered by consumers at considerably lower cost.
No - I don't support mandating ED meds, either. At some point - there's a difference between saving lives, and sustaining a specific "quality" of life -- and I think minimum coverage regulations should focus on the former, not the later.
I agree. And I would go further- none of the preventative "services" should be mandated. The list is growing, and the docs are going to recommend them all since they are "free".
They are not free. They are pre-paid in your policy premiums with a +20% overhead for processing all the paperwork and payment.
I have no problem requiring insurance companies to "offer" these pre-paid services as part of a HMO style plan to those who wish to buy that kind of plan. I don't. And it is not "insurance" any way you spin it. The Feds, HHS, and health commissions have no business telling Americans what benefits they are required to buy.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
I don't owe insurance premiums for breeding choices...(according to some)... Is "species survival" something for the "greater good"? You guys don't believe in ANYTHING for "the greater good". What a dilemma.
You want to breed, don't expect me to fund your choices.....
Besides, wouldn't the title of the thread be more appropriate for a decision to cover Viagra prescriptions for women if the argument Kate forwarded (since parroted by the usual regressive suspects) had any merit whatsoever? Given that the standard illiberal, and illogical, deflection of covering birth control centers around Viagra, even though the prescriptions have totally different applications, why is the regressive argument for inclusion of coverage for that medication not limited to covering the same, not a different, prescription for both sexes?
Is anyone truly interested in continuing to compare apples and oranges?
It does not need to be changed...It does not require any additional explanation for the Rep-tards...
It has merit because it has great use in family planning for FAMILIES... If the usual right-wingers want to draw a parallel in their ability to need something to "get it up", that's not my problem. If they want to extrapolate the use of the pills to casual sex, that' also their problem... You don't want to get some woman pregnant?, keep your zipper up and don't have sex.
Trying to stay on topic, or at least I think I am.
So far as I know, the majority of health insurance coverage is consistent in that it doesn't cover birth control, neither for women (pills or birth control surgery not usually covered) or men (condoms or birth control surgery not usually covered).
Now, ED may be somewhat related, but it's often a medical condition, unlike contraception. But still, I don't think ED drugs are covered by most health insurance policies. It isn't covered by Medicare/Medicaid, and many private companies followed suit. It may be covered if it's due to some other medical condition which is covered, but I think even that would be very limited.
Public and private payers are concerned about the financial effects of covering treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED). The introduction of sildenafil (Viagra, a phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitor) generated financial worries because of its high profile as a “lifestyle drug” with potentially unprecedented demand. Pfizer, the maker of Viagra, was depicted as redefining ED so as to reach a larger portion of the population, instead of accepting a “niche role” in which the new drug would be recommended only for treatment of ED due to disease or injury.1 Critics argued that reimbursement for ED prescriptions would have dire financial consequences for insurers, employers, and governments.2 Likewise, payers feared that men would seek medications to enhance sexual functioning without regard to their current levels of functioning and activity. Accordingly, in 2005 the US Congress approved removal of coverage for ED drugs from Medicare and Medicaid. Many private insurers and self-funded health plans followed suit.3 Some health insurers made treatment for ED a contractual exclusion soon after Viagra was introduced.
