Religious freedom and contraception

[Bri]

Sorry, no. My point continues to be that the cost is not neutral or negative to the employer.

Then please carry on with your straw man. I never claimed otherwise, nor has anyone else that I know of.

Fine let's discuss why a private employer should be forced to pay for this. Cost saving certainly isn't one of the reasons.

Oh, I would much prefer that no employers provide health insurance and having a single-payer system. The Republicans wanted to continue to use the current system of employers providing health insurance. If employers are going to provide health insurance, I don't see a problem with setting minimum standards based on recommendations by health care experts, much like we set minimum standards for working conditions. Note that almost all employers already provide coverage for contraceptives, so it's only going to affect those who don't currently meet those minimum standards. Companies will help pay for it one way or the other, either directly or through taxes.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

It should be pointed out that if an employer prefers to pay extra taxes rather than provide the minimum standard of health insurance to their employees, they may do so under the health care law. So I'm not sure it's valid to argue that requiring contraception coverage interferes with anyone's freedom of religion in some way that using taxes to pay for contraceptives doesn't.

-Bri

 

[Neally]

Then please carry on with your straw man. I never claimed otherwise, nor has anyone else that I know of.

RandFan certainly tried and failed to .

If employers are going to provide health insurance, I don't see a problem with setting minimum standards based on recommendations by health care experts, much like we set minimum standards for working conditions.

Well then, do reiterate what the compelling need and public good will be for providing that contraception coverage, and how that outweighs the cost to the employer. We already know that if it's not provided by the employer, most employees will simply purchase it themselves, and that it's an additional expense to the employer if forced to carry it, so do chime in with the experts reasons why the employer should be forced to cover it.

ETA: Miss Fluke is not an expert, despite being called to testify before Congress.

 

[Bri]

RandFan certainly tried and failed to .

You and I began this discussion because you responded to a comment I made to xjx388, in which I was talking about overall costs. So you changed the subject if you were only talking about costs to the employer.

I'll let RandFan clarify if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was claiming that it would save the employer money, but rather that it would save money overall. It very well may save the employer money, but that would depend on how many women would get birth control on their own if coverage wasn't offered by the employer, and I'm not sure anyone knows that.

But I'm a little puzzled why you're only concerned with employer costs given that overall costs will likely be reduced. A single-payer system would have addressed your concern, but since the current system was favored by the Republicans and is unlikely to change, why not save money overall and just give employers a tax break if you think the portion they're paying is too high?

Well then, do reiterate what the compelling need and public good will be for providing that contraception coverage, and how that outweighs the cost to the employer.

I already did. It is recommended by health care experts because it will likely increase contraception usage. I think that definitely outweighs any increased costs to the employer.

ETA: Miss Fluke is not an expert, despite being called to testify before Congress.

I don't believe I've mentioned Miss Fluke in this thread. The health experts I was referring to were members of the medical advisory panel from the Institute of Medicine (part of the National Academy of Sciences) that made the recommendation to the Obama administration.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I'll let RandFan clarify if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was claiming that it would save the employer money, but rather that it would save money overall.

I claimed that it did. We are talking about the co-pays vs lost productivity. But I don't now if that means every employer or on average. That's my recollection.

The claims by Nelly that the report was doctored to justify a preconceived view is entirely merit less. And yes, he did make that very claim. He never did provide evidence of a conspiracy between Brookings, Guttmacher and Bussiness group or the reviewers at New England Journal of Medicine. Make of that what you will.

 

[RandFan]

Update:

• Religion does not mean that you get to do anything you want.
• Title X still requires secular institutions owned by religious organizations to pay for BC.
• Article in the New England Journal of Medicine claims that multiple studies by Brookings, Guttmacher and Business Group show covering BC is cost negative.
• It's good for employers. It's good for employees. It's good for society.

It's a good thing.

 

[Bri]

I claimed that it did. We are talking about the co-pays vs lost productivity. But I don't now if that means every employer or on average. That's my recollection.

Let's say an employer decides not to offer any coverage for birth control, and another employer offers first-dollar coverage of birth control to all female employees. The employer offering the birth control is spending more money on birth control. But whether or not the first employer loses enough money due to loss of productivity and pregnancy/birth costs to negate the savings would depend on how many female employees go and buy their own birth control. If nearly all do, then clearly the first employer comes out ahead since the costs of the birth control shift from the employer to the employees without a significant increase in unintended pregnancies. We can assume that not all women would buy their own (some couldn't afford it) but I'm not sure if there are estimates of how many.

Did any of the studies try to quantify how many women would buy their own contraceptives if they weren't provided through the employer? Most of the ones I've seen just do an analysis of various forms of birth control and of no birth control taking into account the number of unintended pregnancies that would occur with each and the cost of those pregnancies. They show that no birth control is more expensive than even the least cost-effective forms of birth control, but they don't attempt to determine costs specific to the employer.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Did any of the studies try to quantify how many women would buy their own contraceptives if they weren't provided through the employer? Most of the ones I've seen just do a cost analysis of various forms of birth control and of no birth control and show that no birth control is more expensive than even the least cost-effective forms of birth control.

Let's go over what we know.

• Unintended pregnancies cost the US tax payers $11B annually. That is simply the tab tax payers pick up for unwanted pregnancies.
• ....many women face problems in using contraceptives or using them consistently. Among the 43 million women at risk of an unintended pregnancy in 2002, 6% did not use a method all year, 10% had a gap in use of at least one month and 19% reported inconsistent use (e.g., skipped pills). This behavior has clear consequences: The one-third of women who do not use a method or who use one inconsistently account for 95% of unintended pregnancies.
• (IBID) In total, services provided at publicly funded family planning centers saved $5.1 billion in 2008. (Significantly, these savings do not account for any of the broader health, social or economic benefits to women and families from contraceptive services and supplies and the ability to time, space and prepare for pregnancies.) A 2010 Brookings Institution analysis came to the same conclusion, and projected that expanding access to family planning services under Medicaid saves $4.26 for every $1 spent.

In short, the conclusion isn't simply factoring what unintended pregnancies cost but the savings gained by expanding services. Of course if one believes the report is based on conspiracy then it is meaningless.

 

[Neally]

So it depends on how many employees would buy their own if it wasn't provided through the employer. Did any of the studies try to quantify how many women would buy their own contraceptives if they weren't provided through the employer? Most of the ones I've seen just do an analysis of various forms of birth control and of no birth control taking into account the number of unintended pregnancies that would occur with each and the cost of those pregnancies. They show that no birth control is more expensive than even the least cost-effective forms of birth control, but they don't attempt to determine costs specifically to the employer.

The sole attempt at answering this was a model not a study. That model looked at all the costs to the employer maternity leave, unintended pregnancies, etc. But the model oddly included sterilization in the "no contraception coverage" which is certainly a form of contraception. The model showed that full coverage was less expensive than just covering sterilization, primarily because if you just offer sterilization more employees tend to use that since it is the only free one available and the cost to the employer for sterilization is way more than the other methods.

In short, including sterilization in the "no contraception coverage" pretty much made the whole thing pointless and strikes me as an attempt at making the outcome look favorable for full contraception.

It is recommended by health care experts because it will likely increase contraception usage. I think that definitely outweighs any increased costs to the employer.

Really? I must have missed that. Please provide the link that shows that private employer health plan provided contraception coverage increases contraception usage over private employer health plans which don't offer contraception coverage.

 

[RandFan]

Let's go over what we know.

• Unintended pregnancies cost the US tax payers $11B annually. That is simply the tab tax payers pick up for unwanted pregnancies.
• ....many women face problems in using contraceptives or using them consistently. Among the 43 million women at risk of an unintended pregnancy in 2002, 6% did not use a method all year, 10% had a gap in use of at least one month and 19% reported inconsistent use (e.g., skipped pills). This behavior has clear consequences: The one-third of women who do not use a method or who use one inconsistently account for 95% of unintended pregnancies.
• (IBID) In total, services provided at publicly funded family planning centers saved $5.1 billion in 2008. (Significantly, these savings do not account for any of the broader health, social or economic benefits to women and families from contraceptive services and supplies and the ability to time, space and prepare for pregnancies.) A 2010 Brookings Institution analysis came to the same conclusion, and projected that expanding access to family planning services under Medicaid saves $4.26 for every $1 spent.

In short, the conclusion isn't simply factoring what unintended pregnancies cost but the savings gained by expanding services. Of course if one believes the report is based on conspiracy then it is meaningless.

BTW: And this can't be stressed enough, we are talking co-pays. Got it? Frikin co-pays and the world comes to an abrupt halt. No way that we could possibly justify co-pays.

Go figure.

My prediction, this has already died down pretty much. Society breathed a collective sigh of "who gives a ****" and we have now moved on. No cats and dogs living together. No unraveling of the social fabric. BFD. But some people need something to outrage them (outraged I tells ya).

 

[tyr_13]

ETA: Miss Fluke is not an expert, despite being called to testify before Congress.

Actually, she is one. Her expertise comes from extensive research into the cost/benefits of such policies and constructing arguments strong enough to get a religion backed institution to agree with her findings. She's not a medical expert but she most certainly is an expert on that policy.

 

[Bri]

Really? I must have missed that. Please provide the link that shows that private employer health plan provided contraception coverage increases contraception usage over private employer health plans which don't offer contraception coverage.

You must have missed it, because it's already been discussed. Unless you're trying to claim that no women who don't currently use contraception for whatever reason would use contraception if it was covered by their employer-provided insurance, it's evident that employer-provided contraception coverage will increase contraception use.

ETA: You already admitted that at least some women who don't use contraceptives would use contraceptives if covered by their employer. You said, "By in large people will buy their own if it's not free." When asked to clarify what you meant by "by in large" you said, "By in large means the vast majority." So you admit that some minority of women would use contraceptives who wouldn't otherwise. I think it would be a significant number of women, but I agree it would probably be a minority since the majority of working women already have coverage for contraception and already use contraceptives.

-Bri

 

[Neally]

Unless you're trying to claim that no women who don't currently use contraception for whatever reason would use contraception if it was covered by their employer-provided insurance, it's evident that employer-provided contraception coverage will increase contraception use.

Close, but not quite the point trying to be resolved. Please provide the link to the studies that shows that private employer health plan provided contraception coverage increases contraception usage over private employer health plans which don't offer contraception coverage.

 

[RandFan]

You must have missed it, because it's already been discussed. Unless you're trying to claim that no women who don't currently use contraception for whatever reason would use contraception if it was covered by their employer-provided insurance, it's evident that employer-provided contraception coverage will increase contraception use.

• Unintended pregnancies cost the US tax payers $11B annually.
• The one-third of women who do not use a method or who use one inconsistently account for 95% of unintended pregnancies.
• ...expanding access to family planning services under Medicaid saves $4.26 for every $1 spent.

 

[Bri]

Close, but not quite the point trying to be resolved. Please provide the link to the studies that shows that private employer health plan provided contraception coverage increases contraception usage over private employer health plans which don't offer contraception coverage.

Already answered several times. If not, I have no idea what you mean.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

If someone wants to think that the studies and claims of Brookings are part of a conspiracy then that's fine. If you want to pretend that you know more than the experts and think you've found some flaw that the New England Journal missed then that's fine. Just understand that it costs you credibility to be so intransigent and absurd to demand that others agree with you.

I don't know for a fact that Brookings, Guttmacher and Business group are not involved in a conspiracy. I don't know for a fact that the New England Journal of Medicine missed the boat when they published the report.

I'm not going to take silly assertions over a report issued by one of the most trusted think tanks and published in one of the most reputable science journals.

Is there something about that, that people do not get. Believe whatever CT you fancy.

 

[Neally]

Already answered several times. If not, I have no idea what you mean.

So you have no links showing studies that shows that private employer health plan provided contraception coverage increases contraception usage over private employer health plans which don't offer contraception coverage. Why again are you in favor of forcing private employer insurance plans to cover contraception?

 

[Bri]

So you have no links showing studies that shows that private employer health plan provided contraception coverage increases contraception usage over private employer health plans which don't offer contraception coverage.

RandFan has already posted several. You even admitted it yourself.

Why again are you in favor of forcing private employer insurance plans to cover contraception?

Asked and answered. If you have some other point to make, move on. Repeating the same things over and over isn't going to win the argument for you.

-Bri

 

[Neally]

RandFan has already posted several. You even admitted it yourself.

The only relevant one he posted didn't model what he said it modeled and I've already discussed that.

Asked and answered.

"Answered" does not mean you included the links supporting your position. You done now?

If you have some other point to make, move on. Repeating the same things over and over isn't going to win the argument for you.

Same goes for you. You claimed,

It is recommended by health care experts because it will likely increase contraception usage. I think that definitely outweighs any increased costs to the employer.

When asked for the links that support the health care experts studies that shows that private employer health plan provided contraception coverage increases contraception usage over private employer health plans which don't offer contraception coverage, you say Randfan already did, or you did, or something. Evasion noted.

 

[Bri]

Same goes for you. You claimed, When asked for the links that support the health care experts studies that shows that private employer health plan provided contraception coverage increases contraception usage over private employer health plans which don't offer contraception coverage, you say Randfan already did, or you did, or something. Evasion noted.

And I said to read the report from the health care experts who made the recommendation. They cite their sources.

It's ridiculous to claim that not a single woman who doesn't currently use birth control would use it if it's completely covered by their employer-provided health plan. Is that really your position? If it is, I posted a quote by someone named "Neally" who apparently disagrees with you.

You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

-Bri