Why do so plentiful vigour insurance companies not cover birth control?
I think it would make more monetary sense to pay for birth control pills at $400 a year instead of a pregnancy at $5,000-$15,000 a year, depending on where you live and whether or not you enjoy a C-section. That's assuming the pregnancy has no complications. Obvioulsy, constant pregnancies are more expensive than birth control. Wouldn't you want to do what's most profitable?
Answers:
the way i see it is that, you own to pay for birth control always for several years, until logically when you stop and want to have child.
since giving birth is so special and unique and covers single certain number of pregnancies in some cases, the average number of children per own flesh and blood is limited. The cost let us utter you have 4 children, based on usual condition will be about 20KUSD, but for birth control you will have years after years and years of cost. example ten years of fertility control would be in the order of 40KUSD. Yes, you will have more to cover cost when children are born and reared, but thats exactly is, they are born and contribute to the welfare fund following on by becoming productive citizen.
maby because the more people nearby are the more money they will make. just similar to the government handing out wic and welfare to relatives who constantly reproduce.instead of expecting them to keep there legs closed and progress to work.
probably because it is considered elective medication despite the growing number of women who necessitate it for proper reproductive health.
This is an excellent question! From my experience one of the former companies I was employed by did not bestow it in the health plan as the company be a catholic school sweater manufacturer and they did not condone birth control.
As a young-looking woman working for this company I was completely angered and did all kind of research on the pros of birth control (though there are many cons to the pill I am in good health aware of). I wrote a proposal, provided selected information and got more than partly the women in the office to sign a petition and it be changed.
I think the employer was surrounded by accordance with your hypothesis that having protected workers would be more beneficial monetarily or anything.
But seriously if it is not covered by your employers insurance than it is probably in accordance next to their politics but we have the right and the power to make change
Because paying for birth control doesn't make a woman have smaller amount pregnancies over a period of time, they just own them earlier. Best form of Birth Control? Having children.
They don't cover birth control, because it isn't a health problem. Fertility is a pre-existing condition.
My cynical explanation: What do you muse the old dudes legislating this would rather protect: their access Viagra medication or some random woman's right to effective birth control? Sad, heartbreaking.
Excellent question. I have be asking this for 20+ years.
The only credible answer I have ever found (unsatisfactory as it is) is that vigour insurance is designed to cover expenses of illness... and the use of birth control does not treat illness (there are exceptions, close to treament of ovarian cysts or PMDD, in such cases the insurance company can be persuaded to cover the cost) .
Ironically, they DO cover motherliness care, which has cause the medical community to treat pregnancy and childbirth as illness, rather than run of the mill life events. By this same twisted logic, insurance companies justify covering the cost of viagra for 50 year behind the times men who are experiencing decreased libido (which IS a NORMAL life event), by calling it a "dysfunction."
It is selective application of resources that benefit men and create misery for women.
This is an excellent cross-examine. I have some articles on it that I'll post in a minute. Viagra be covered by insurance companies _long_ before the pill. Planned Parenthood and other organizations have to fight tooth and nail to win coverage for it. The integral thing is just totally anti-common sense and sexist.
I would think so. However, our entire society seem to seperate "having children" with the concept of "adjectives to society", which I think filters down into thinking of adjectives reproductive health as a "side issue".
Just think - how heaps men are *for* unemployment pay, but *against* welfare - the equivelent for any at-home mother suddenly discarded by her husband? That's because there is this notion that healthy, well-rounded 18 year-olds pop up out of nowhere, arranged to become the workforce of tomorrow. If only the working-for-pay man is valuable to society, one and only he needs social programs, and only he *deserves* them.
For my bit, DH and I looked into individual (not company) health care, solitary to find that we could pay $600 a month. Not covered: birth control, abortion, prenatal care, and masses complications of delivery. You had to take-home pay $300 a month extra, and for at least a year before conception, for them to cover *any* prenatal contemplation, and then they only salaried half of the cost. How that is not unauthorized is beyond me. Basically they covered anything that would happen to my husband, such as prostate cancer or heart attack (both of which he is far more likely to enjoy to deal with than I am), but while I have to pay an equal cost for premiums, they didn't cover much of anything that was credible to happen to me (as a 25 year old married woman, pregnancy be just about it, dontcha conjecture?) Oh, and they paid for *one* pelvic exam every *two* years - the AMA recommends one a year.
The problem is that pregnancy and birth control own been swept away as a seperate issue. Women need to stop insisting that they are "exactly like" men. We're not; we get hold of pregnant. As women, we need to band together and insist that we be treated not a short time ago equally, but with equal regard to our proper robustness services. This is a human rights issue, not just an issue that one or two odd ducks are going to be face with.
Women have be preventing pregnancy long before the advent of the birth control pill.
So most of the insurance companies look at it this way - if she doesn't want to gain pregnant, she'll find non-medical ways to do it, or she'll pay for the pills out of pocket.
They don't view it as paying for the birth control will preserve pregnancy numbers down.
So, if you look at it from that point of view, that no matter what, pregnancy rates will stay pretty constant, later not paying for the birth control pill saves them money.
I would like to know that too. The insurance I was on would NOT cover birth control but would cover pregnancy AND the medical costs for that child until he or she grew up!! So I can't numeral it out either.
How many are covering Viagra but still not covering birth control? I wonder.
Hm, good point. That's the best way to return with people to agree to anything: Outline the economic benefits. Excellent work.
It's interesting that these insurance companies deduce all women are going to get pregnant. As if!
An aside: Did you know that the just prescription drug still covered for employees of the federal government is Viagra? Seriously, it is.
Related Questions:
Answers:
the way i see it is that, you own to pay for birth control always for several years, until logically when you stop and want to have child.
since giving birth is so special and unique and covers single certain number of pregnancies in some cases, the average number of children per own flesh and blood is limited. The cost let us utter you have 4 children, based on usual condition will be about 20KUSD, but for birth control you will have years after years and years of cost. example ten years of fertility control would be in the order of 40KUSD. Yes, you will have more to cover cost when children are born and reared, but thats exactly is, they are born and contribute to the welfare fund following on by becoming productive citizen.
maby because the more people nearby are the more money they will make. just similar to the government handing out wic and welfare to relatives who constantly reproduce.instead of expecting them to keep there legs closed and progress to work.
probably because it is considered elective medication despite the growing number of women who necessitate it for proper reproductive health.
This is an excellent question! From my experience one of the former companies I was employed by did not bestow it in the health plan as the company be a catholic school sweater manufacturer and they did not condone birth control.
As a young-looking woman working for this company I was completely angered and did all kind of research on the pros of birth control (though there are many cons to the pill I am in good health aware of). I wrote a proposal, provided selected information and got more than partly the women in the office to sign a petition and it be changed.
I think the employer was surrounded by accordance with your hypothesis that having protected workers would be more beneficial monetarily or anything.
But seriously if it is not covered by your employers insurance than it is probably in accordance next to their politics but we have the right and the power to make change
Because paying for birth control doesn't make a woman have smaller amount pregnancies over a period of time, they just own them earlier. Best form of Birth Control? Having children.
They don't cover birth control, because it isn't a health problem. Fertility is a pre-existing condition.
My cynical explanation: What do you muse the old dudes legislating this would rather protect: their access Viagra medication or some random woman's right to effective birth control? Sad, heartbreaking.
Excellent question. I have be asking this for 20+ years.
The only credible answer I have ever found (unsatisfactory as it is) is that vigour insurance is designed to cover expenses of illness... and the use of birth control does not treat illness (there are exceptions, close to treament of ovarian cysts or PMDD, in such cases the insurance company can be persuaded to cover the cost) .
Ironically, they DO cover motherliness care, which has cause the medical community to treat pregnancy and childbirth as illness, rather than run of the mill life events. By this same twisted logic, insurance companies justify covering the cost of viagra for 50 year behind the times men who are experiencing decreased libido (which IS a NORMAL life event), by calling it a "dysfunction."
It is selective application of resources that benefit men and create misery for women.
This is an excellent cross-examine. I have some articles on it that I'll post in a minute. Viagra be covered by insurance companies _long_ before the pill. Planned Parenthood and other organizations have to fight tooth and nail to win coverage for it. The integral thing is just totally anti-common sense and sexist.
I would think so. However, our entire society seem to seperate "having children" with the concept of "adjectives to society", which I think filters down into thinking of adjectives reproductive health as a "side issue".
Just think - how heaps men are *for* unemployment pay, but *against* welfare - the equivelent for any at-home mother suddenly discarded by her husband? That's because there is this notion that healthy, well-rounded 18 year-olds pop up out of nowhere, arranged to become the workforce of tomorrow. If only the working-for-pay man is valuable to society, one and only he needs social programs, and only he *deserves* them.
For my bit, DH and I looked into individual (not company) health care, solitary to find that we could pay $600 a month. Not covered: birth control, abortion, prenatal care, and masses complications of delivery. You had to take-home pay $300 a month extra, and for at least a year before conception, for them to cover *any* prenatal contemplation, and then they only salaried half of the cost. How that is not unauthorized is beyond me. Basically they covered anything that would happen to my husband, such as prostate cancer or heart attack (both of which he is far more likely to enjoy to deal with than I am), but while I have to pay an equal cost for premiums, they didn't cover much of anything that was credible to happen to me (as a 25 year old married woman, pregnancy be just about it, dontcha conjecture?) Oh, and they paid for *one* pelvic exam every *two* years - the AMA recommends one a year.
The problem is that pregnancy and birth control own been swept away as a seperate issue. Women need to stop insisting that they are "exactly like" men. We're not; we get hold of pregnant. As women, we need to band together and insist that we be treated not a short time ago equally, but with equal regard to our proper robustness services. This is a human rights issue, not just an issue that one or two odd ducks are going to be face with.
Women have be preventing pregnancy long before the advent of the birth control pill.
So most of the insurance companies look at it this way - if she doesn't want to gain pregnant, she'll find non-medical ways to do it, or she'll pay for the pills out of pocket.
They don't view it as paying for the birth control will preserve pregnancy numbers down.
So, if you look at it from that point of view, that no matter what, pregnancy rates will stay pretty constant, later not paying for the birth control pill saves them money.
I would like to know that too. The insurance I was on would NOT cover birth control but would cover pregnancy AND the medical costs for that child until he or she grew up!! So I can't numeral it out either.
How many are covering Viagra but still not covering birth control? I wonder.
Hm, good point. That's the best way to return with people to agree to anything: Outline the economic benefits. Excellent work.
It's interesting that these insurance companies deduce all women are going to get pregnant. As if!
An aside: Did you know that the just prescription drug still covered for employees of the federal government is Viagra? Seriously, it is.
Related Questions:
- Should insurance companies or potential employer hold access to a person's genetic profile?
- Where do insurance companies jump to draw from your medical history?
- How much do insurance companies pass you for a paint charge?
- Starting an Insurance Company?
- Has anyone else ever worked for United American Insurance Company and be wrongfully fired?