Other than the conditions that the pill treats, how is Contraception part of healthcare? And why can't the pills be insurance covered, not as contraception, but as a condition treatment to women who have these conditions?
260 views and not one single reply? Damn, I didn't think this would be such a hard question to answer!
Contraception in general is healthcare for the same kind of reasons maternity and post-natal treatment is healthcare. There are also forms of contraception which also provide protection from STIs which is very clearly a healthcare (and public health) issue. I suspect any idea of contraceptive pills being available for treating health issues rather than contraceptive purposes would still be blocked by the opponents on a “slippery slope” basis.
You mean because contraception pills are used to treat post-natal conditions? True. I wasn't thinking about that because I was thinking more about contraception on the female side, which is where the current controversy in the states is concerned. Possibly, but as far as I'm concerned it would be a ridiculous 'slippery slope' argument to make as I can't think of any other pill which treats both a non-healthcare issue and also healthcare issues. And I'm not sure what other pills they wouldn't want the slippery slope to lead to.
Not just post-natal. There is a range of health conditions largely unrelated to fertility or pregnancy which contraceptive pills are routinely used to treat. I’d suggest that kind of thinking Is a major part of the problem but the rules and laws which result have wider (sometimes unintended) consequences. It’s commonly said that if it were men who got pregnant, this kind of thing wouldn’t be an issue in the first place. You didn’t asked what the valid reasons are, you asked why it doesn’t happen. The “slippery slope” stuff is typically about encouraging promiscuity and the like. They’re not very solid arguments but they’re held by a vocal minority and enough legislators to influence policy all the same.
And that's exactly the reason why it should be covered by insurance if it is treating an illness. To get rid of it entirely as Trump has done is wrong. What thinking? Yeah, that argument is unnecessary. The argument is simply that its not healthcare.
I agree (though for slightly different reasons). It’s not really a Trump thing though, this debate has been going on for decades now. The focusing of “female contraception” as if it’s only an issue for women rather than an issue for (and impacting) all of us. There are lots of arguments presented and lots of unspoken reasons behind them. What people say and what they’re actually thinking are often not the same thing (especially in politics).
Where did I say that? Why would anyone be AGAINST women having control of their reproduction? I'm saying that birth control isn't healthcare and as such shouldn't have to be covered by insurance by employers.
in reality, insurance companies prefer to offer it as it's cheaper then child birth, especially unwanted child birth
Actually that's a good point which I didn't think of. And in terms of an employer's health insurance package for employees, you'd think they too would prefer to offer it, as babies mean women will take time off work. But they must prefer not to otherwise this wouldn't be an issue.
