Religious freedom and contraception

[crimresearch]

Not so. I just gave the cost of birth control pills. There are many to choose from which are available for around $20/month or less. That's affordable. More expensive options exist, but one doesn't need to pick the most expensive option. I have no idea what Fluke was spending all that money on, and neither do you. You also have no idea why she spent so much (assuming she told the truth). And more importantly, you have presented no evidence that her costs are in any way typical or even necessary for non-typical cases. In fact, nobody has presented any evidence that contraceptive costs are an undue burden on anyone. Even Fluke didn't do that, because again, she didn't tell us why it cost her so much, so we cannot even conclude that she couldn't have paid much less.

Fluke never claimed that she spent that much, she said it could cost people as much as the correct figure she gave... So you are simply flinging completely debunked falsehoods as a smokescreen.

And your notion that someone can just ignore the prescription their doctor wrote and go pick up any old pill for the lowest price is simply you running away from reality as hard as you can.

 

[Neally]

It was the result of multiple studies that was the impetus for this policy.

Thanks for the cite. Let's examine it.
Your link is based on the report here which contains the references.

The relevant paragraph:

A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health, a membership group for large private- and public-sector employers to address their health policy concerns, estimated that it costs employers 15–17% more to not provide contraceptive coverage in employee health plans than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity.⁶⁹ Mercer, the employee benefits consulting firm, conducted a similar analysis that year and also concluded that contraceptive coverage should be cost-saving for employers.⁷⁰

From the above cite 69 they give a model which shows that if a company offers full contraception coverage vs a policy that only offers sterilization coverage, the model with full coverage reduces costs due to the fact that if only sterilization is offered, more people choose that option and that option is more expensive. Take away that option and the model shows that no coverage whatsoever is 39% is less expensive. So much for the idea that full contraception coverage results in a net savings vs no coverage.

Unfortunately I cannot find the source document for the #70 cite: William M. Mercer, Women’s Health Care Issues: Contraception as a Covered Benefit, New York: William M. Mercer, 2000.

And? These all strike me as non sequiturs. What does what you "want" have anything to do with the subject at hand? If running shoes can increase well being and decrease costs then pray tell what on earth is the problem?

It's about drawing a line in what people want, then providing some sort of rationalization as to some greater public good that will be served by giving them the free stuff that they want.

 

[respect]

You're right. It is nonsense. No one is buying anyone anything. Health insurance is compensation for employment.

The employer is buying labor then

 

[respect]

But you are paying for it. The employer is only the middle man.

Then it isn't compensation for employment.

 

[RandFan]

From the above cite 69 they give a model which shows that if a company offers full contraception coverage vs a policy that only offers sterilization coverage, the model with full coverage reduces costs due to the fact that if only sterilization is offered, more people choose that option and that option is more expensive. Take away that option and the model shows that no coverage whatsoever is 39% is less expensive. So much for the idea that full contraception coverage results in a net savings vs no coverage.

Uh no.

Interestingly, although studies show that 93% of
women report using contraception, the unintended
pregnancy rate is evenly split between those using and
the 7% not using contraception. This leads to two
important points. First, there would be a significant
impact if this 7% opted to use contraception. The
key is to make contraception appealing, affordable,
and available. Secondly, women using contraception
still accounted for half of unintended pregnancy cases,
implying a failure in appropriate contraception use.
This points to the importance of matching the correct
method to the individual and counseling to ensure
that these methods are used consistently and correctly.

I can't find where you got your claim. I don't doubt that such a comparison exists in the report but it is not the only comparison.

It's about drawing a line in what people want, then providing some sort of rationalization as to some greater public good that will be served by giving them the free stuff that they want.

The studies predated the recommendation. Your chronology is wrong and doesn't support your claim.

 

[respect]

You are the one who is off the rails, Tony is making perfect sense.

He most certainly is not.

Is my company purchasing my retirement plan for me, or I am buying it? Just like Health care, my company deducts a set amount each paycheck and puts it into a retirement account instead of giving it to me as salary. The even match a portion of the contributions.

Both in this case. They are operating your retirement plan and partially funding it. You are doing the rest of the funding.

 

[Ziggurat]

Fluke never claimed that she spent that much, she said it could cost people as much as the correct figure she gave...

Oh, so that's a purely theoretical number, and it's possible that nobody at Georgetown actually paid that much. That makes her argument so much better.

Oh, wait, that doesn't help her position at all: her figure still tells us nothing about how affordable contraceptives are. Just like the cost of a Bentley tells us nothing about the affordability of cars.

And your notion that someone can just ignore the prescription their doctor wrote and go pick up any old pill for the lowest price is simply you running away from reality as hard as you can.

Doctors aren't dictators. If you tell your doctor that you're on a budget, they aren't going to prescribe you a pill that you can't afford. In fact, any doctor worth their salt should discuss with the patient which contraceptive would be best for them, factoring in whatever is important to the patient (such as cost). So yeah, I think it should be pretty easy to get your doctor to write a prescription for a low cost contraceptive pill, if that's what you need.

And if that's NOT the case, then you're basically claiming that the problem isn't a lack of insurance or the high cost of contraceptives, but the doctors themselves depriving patients of choice and inflating costs. Good luck with that line of reasoning, it's not going to lead where you want it to go.

 

[RandFan]

Secondly, women using contraception
still accounted for half of unintended pregnancy cases,
implying a failure in appropriate contraception use.
This points to the importance of matching the correct method to the individual and counseling to ensure that these methods are used consistently and correctly.

A point that needs to be made. This idea that Wllmart is a one size fits all solution is silly.

 

[Neally]

Uh no.

Your quote says nothing about the net cost/benefit analysis of coverage vs no coverage like the model from that same report looked at.

I can't find where you got your claim. I don't doubt that such a comparison exists in the report but it is not the only comparison.

It's in the section entitled, "THE BUSINESS CASE FOR A CONTRACEPTIVE BENEFIT: AN ECONOMIC MODEL". The Average Cost of Employee Per Year for full contraception: $562. For sterilization only: $659. For no contraception or sterilization: $339. And that is the only relevant comparison to my point within that report.

The studies predated the recommendation. Your chronology is wrong and doesn't support your claim.

I've already shown that one of the studies that you used actually supports the idea that no coverage is cheaper, everything considered, but do offer more evidence if you have it.

 

[RandFan]

It's in the section entitled, "THE BUSINESS CASE FOR A CONTRACEPTIVE BENEFIT: AN ECONOMIC MODEL". The Average Cost of Employee Per Year for full contraception: $562. For sterilization only: $659. For no contraception or sterilization: $339. And that is the only relevant comparison to my point within that report.

I've no idea how you are comming to your conclusion. The comparisons are contraceptive vs no contraceptive (table 1). These are dependent variables (row). Sterilization is simply an independent variable (column). You can remove sterilization completely and still reach the same conclusion.

I've already shown that one of the studies that you used actually supports the idea that no coverage is cheaper, everything considered, but do offer more evidence if you have it.

No. Please go back and actually read the study. Your red herring is utter nonsense.

 

[RandFan]

 

[RandFan]

 

[Neally]

I've no idea how you are comming to your conclusion. The comparisons are contraceptive vs no contraceptive (table 1). These are dependent variables (row). Sterilization is simply an independent variable (column). You can remove sterilization completely and still reach the same conclusion.

If I must spoon feed the math for you:
From Table 4-
Take out $25,582,720 from the "No Contraceptive Benefit" column Total Method Costs/Year line to eliminate the sterilization cost provided by the health plan.
This gives you $27,160,120 for "Total 1 Year Costs of Contraception" line for the "No Contraceptive Benefit" column. Divide this by the total number of employees of 80,000 and you get $339.50 for a cost per employee per year for no contraception coverage whatsoever.

No. Please go back and actually read the study. Your red herring is utter nonsense.

Yes. I read the study. Do the same and do the math.

 

[RandFan]

If I must spoon feed the math for you:
From Table 4-
Take out $25,582,720 from the "No Contraceptive Benefit" column Total Method Costs/Year line to eliminate the sterilization cost provided by the health plan.
This gives you $27,160,120 for "Total 1 Year Costs of Contraception" line for the "No Contraceptive Benefit" column. Divide this by the total number of employees of 80,000 and you get $339.50 for a cost per employee per year for no contraception coverage whatsoever.

And the other side? "Contraceptive Benefit"? Take out $19,187,040 (sterilization contraception benefit cost). Divide this by the total number of employees of 80,000 and you get $322. Right? It would seem that you forgot that in a comparison you must reduce the costs from both columns. Otherwise it isn't a valid comparison, right? So spare me the snark.

Yes. I read the study. Do the same and do the math.

I did and I did the math for both columns.

 

[crimresearch]

Oh, so that's a purely theoretical number, and it's possible that nobody at Georgetown actually paid that much. That makes her argument so much better.

Oh, wait, that doesn't help her position at all: her figure still tells us nothing about how affordable contraceptives are. Just like the cost of a Bentley tells us nothing about the affordability of cars.



Doctors aren't dictators. If you tell your doctor that you're on a budget, they aren't going to prescribe you a pill that you can't afford. In fact, any doctor worth their salt should discuss with the patient which contraceptive would be best for them, factoring in whatever is important to the patient (such as cost). So yeah, I think it should be pretty easy to get your doctor to write a prescription for a low cost contraceptive pill, if that's what you need.

And if that's NOT the case, then you're basically claiming that the problem isn't a lack of insurance or the high cost of contraceptives, but the doctors themselves depriving patients of choice and inflating costs. Good luck with that line of reasoning, it's not going to lead where you want it to go.

Pretty desperate tap dance there... This isn't about what one student at Gerorgetown may or may not have paid, and the links to the actual range of costs of contraception have already been posted.

You are simply hiding behind cheesecloth.


And the 'Hey Doc, don't prescribe the best medicine for my condition, just give me the cheapest even if it's contraindicated, I promise not to sue you for malpractice' is beyond lame.

 

[Neally]

And the other side? "Contraceptive Benefit"? Take out $19,187,040 (sterilization contraception benefit cost). Divide this by the total number of employees of 80,000 and you get $322. Right? It would seem that you forgot that in a comparison you must reduce the costs from both columns. Otherwise it isn't a valid comparison, right?

Wrong. The two columns, "Contraceptive Benefit" and "No Contraceptive Benefit" are the comparison between health plans offering plans that include contraception coverage for all methods of contraception and only plans that cover sterilization respectively. We are trying to get at a comparison of full coverage contraception and a plan that covers NO contraception, so we subtract out the sterilization costs from the "No Contraceptive Benefit" column ONLY. We then have a valid comparison of full contraception coverage and zero contraception coverage.

Your nonsensical suggestion would give a comparison of full contraception coverage except sterilization vs zero contraception coverage.

So spare me the snark.

Double snark to you now. Keep going.

I did and I did the math for both columns.

The "Contraceptive Benefit" doesn't/shouldn't be touched. That is the base of what we want to compare against. The $562 cost per employee is way more than the $339 for no coverage. The only way the authors could get the model to work favorably for their position is to throw in sterilization as included coverage in a comparison that supposedly was against a plan with "No Contraceptive Benefit".

 

[xjx388]

Pretty desperate tap dance there... This isn't about what one student at Gerorgetown may or may not have paid, and the links to the actual range of costs of contraception have already been posted.

But it is about this because this is the example used in the relevant testimony. How many women actually spend $1000/year on contraception? A few that choose to use the very highest cost ones, perhaps. But no one needs to spend that much. The vast majority of women will have no issue with the $9 one offered at Wal-Mart.

And the 'Hey Doc, don't prescribe the best medicine for my condition, just give me the cheapest even if it's contraindicated, I promise not to sue you for malpractice' is beyond lame.

This is a nonexistent issue. If a woman is contraindicated for oral contraceptives then none of them will work for her. They would have to consider IUDs or other options -which usually end up being cheaper.

 

[crimresearch]

But it is about this because this is the example used in the relevant testimony. How many women actually spend $1000/year on contraception? A few that choose to use the very highest cost ones, perhaps. But no one needs to spend that much. The vast majority of women will have no issue with the $9 one offered at Wal-Mart.

This is a nonexistent issue. If a woman is contraindicated for oral contraceptives then none of them will work for her. They would have to consider IUDs or other options -which usually end up being cheaper.

No one needs to have a specific contraceptive prescription, no matter what the patient's condition, they are interchangeable except for cost? There are no contraindications between them?
And you learned that from what medical source?

Or is this yet another feeble attempt to dodge the question you've been running away from for pages now?

 

[Ziggurat]

Pretty desperate tap dance there... This isn't about what one student at Gerorgetown may or may not have paid, and the links to the actual range of costs of contraception have already been posted.

This thread is long, I haven't seen them, but I've seen no evidence that contraceptives are not affordable. Hell, you don't even appear to be willing to make that claim.

And the 'Hey Doc, don't prescribe the best medicine for my condition, just give me the cheapest even if it's contraindicated, I promise not to sue you for malpractice' is beyond lame.

Oh please. Now you're just making **** up. What medical conditions require only the use of the most expensive birth control pills? Please, do tell us.

 

[RandFan]

You have made two mistakes.

Wrong. The two columns, "Contraceptive Benefit" and "No Contraceptive Benefit" are the comparison between health plans offering plans that include contraception coverage for all methods of contraception and only plans that cover sterilization respectively. We are trying to get at a comparison of full coverage contraception and a plan that covers NO contraception, so we subtract out the sterilization costs from the "No Contraceptive Benefit" column ONLY. We then have a valid comparison of full contraception coverage and zero contraception coverage.

No (it's more complicated than that but I'll get to that in error #2), but let's accept your premise for one moment.

Error #1: Let's assume an employer purchased a BC plan without sterilization as an option? You are saying that we would have to make up sterilization figures on the one side to compare to non-sterilization on the other? Nonsense. Apples to oranges.

Error #2: Back to your assumption. Sterilization prevents pregnancies, right? If you were to take away the coverage then the cost of unintended pregnancies WOULD go up, right? Did you factor those figures? You thought you would get a free benefit? In short, you assumed you could take away all BC and there would be no increase in unintended pregnancies. That's a critical error.