Contraceptives and Viagra

[Aargh]

It appears Congress has specifically eliminated birth control from future health care insurance. It seems reasonable that Congress will next defund Planned Parenthood. Birth control pills aren't that expensove, but reducing access to them seems likely to lead to increased birth rates among the lowest income levels.

That is not a good thing.

Then there's erectile dysfunction drugs. They are covered under most ACA plans and there has been no effort to exclude them from future health coverage.

If bought stateside at pharmacies like WalMart and WalGreens, Cialis (the daily medication) is $40 per tablet. Viagra is $60 per tablet. That's $1,200 to $1,800 per month for every guy with a scrip for ED.

I'd much sooner pay for the low cost of preventing poor people from having more babies than paying ridiculous amounts for guys who either can't consistently get it up or who use the ED meds recreationally.

[MoValley John]

It appears Congress has specifically eliminated birth control from future health care insurance. It seems reasonable that Congress will next defund Planned Parenthood. Birth control pills aren't that expensove, but reducing access to them seems likely to lead to increased birth rates among the lowest income levels.

That is not a good thing.

Then there's erectile dysfunction drugs. They are covered under most ACA plans and there has been no effort to exclude them from future health coverage.

If bought stateside at pharmacies like WalMart and WalGreens, Cialis (the daily medication) is $40 per tablet. Viagra is $60 per tablet. That's $1,200 to $1,800 per month for every guy with a scrip for ED.

I'd much sooner pay for the low cost of preventing poor people from having more babies than paying ridiculous amounts for guys who either can't consistently get it up or who use the ED meds recreationally.

I would prefer to pay for........ Neither. I don't want to pay for any of that stuff. Rubbers are already free almost anywhere, and I don't want to pay for boner pills, either.

[MoValley John]

http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/healthdept/familyplanning.asp

For those that can't afford birth control, you can go to the county. Sedgwick, along with most county health departments have a sliding scale for fees. Ultimately, if you are truely broke, you can already receive birth control for free.

There is no problem with getting free condoms, this is a political football. Kick it around, scare people, divide, meanwhile, there has always been an avenue to cheap or free birth control.

And no, I don't want to pay for boner pills.

[wufan]

Neither should be covered. I understand the argument for birth control pills, but there are many examples of people that get them free that don't take them. Other forms of free long term birth control still exist (IUD). Because of the low price of the pill, it is an odd item to exclude.

[SB Shock]

Actually you are not giving the politicians their due credit. The developed countries in the world have a weak birth rate problem (especially Europe/Russia). The U.S. is on the verge (but due to immigration we have it to lesser extent). But it could become a "national emergency (see link below). So the politicians are being pro-active - funding more boners and more babies.

http://theweek.com/articles/642303/americas-birth-rate-now-national-emergency

[Kung Wu]

One argument that can be made is that birth control is not a health condition. True erectile dysfunction is a health condition.

[MoValley John]

One argument that can be made is that birth control is not a health condition. True erectile dysfunction is a health condition.

Sometimes you just have a really ugly wife.

[Kung Wu]

Sometimes you just have a really ugly wife.

And that's a strong argument for thr legalization of pot.

[SHOCKvalue]

One argument that can be made is that birth control is not a health condition. True erectile dysfunction is a health condition.

That's the MAIN argument, really. They're not related issues, but don't tell that to your favorite irrational leftist.

[MoValley John]

And that's a strong argument for thr legalization of pot.

True.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

This is why it is stupid for health insurance to cover little stuff. Just like a warranty on your $500 TV that costs you $75. Buy insurance for your house, for cancer treatments, etc., and when the small bills show up, just pay for them. Would expose inflated pricing and help bring all pricing in line with reality.

[ShockerPrez]

This is why it is stupid for health insurance to cover little stuff. Just like a warranty on your $500 TV that costs you $75. Buy insurance for your house, for cancer treatments, etc., and when the small bills show up, just pay for them. Would expose inflated pricing and help bring all pricing in line with reality.

Completely agree. You get insurance for the stuff you cant pay for on your own in case of emergency. If you didnt have to spend $500 a month on insurance and only paid like 250, you would have an additional 3000 a year to pay for the normal doctor visits and probably have a little bit leftover...

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Insurance, by nature, means generally overpaying so as to even out the risk. I can't afford $2,000,000 in medical bills, so I pay a premium in case that happens. I know the insurance company receives more than they pay out to their customers, but I'm fine with this arrangement because it helps prevent a possible catastrophe.

On small items, the arrangement becomes stupid. It is like saying there is a 50/50 chance of owing $10, so I pay $6 to have someone take away that risk. At that scale, it is just dumb.

[ShockerPrez]

Insurance, by nature, means generally overpaying so as to even out the risk. I can't afford $2,000,000 in medical bills, so I pay a premium in case that happens. I know the insurance company receives more than they pay out to their customers, but I'm fine with this arrangement because it helps prevent a possible catastrophe.

On small items, the arrangement becomes stupid. It is like saying there is a 50/50 chance of owing $10, so I pay $6 to have someone take away that risk. At that scale, it is just dumb.

Furthermore, you are willingly giving away your money with no guarantee of ever receiving any benefit, if you never got sick. That is the risk the policy owner accepts, and is really the only way insurance companies can remain viable in the long run. This is partly why insurance costs are rising, because policy owners have basically forgone that risk as they expect to get something out of it on a regular basis.

[RoyalShock]

Completely agree. You get insurance for the stuff you cant pay for on your own in case of emergency. If you didnt have to spend $500 a month on insurance and only paid like 250, you would have an additional 3000 a year to pay for the normal doctor visits and probably have a little bit leftover...

How many would actually save that $3000/yr for medical or other unplanned expenses?

Vacations, new car payments, restaurants and $75 insurance on $500 TVs are the likely uses of those savings. But maybe that would spur the economy.