The costs of not covering birth control

Yesterday, in a comment, ricewind brought up that small companies might not be able to afford to add contraception to their plan. So let’s look at risk assessment and cost.

Here is what could happen if I wasn’t on the pill:

The company would have to pay me a sick day every month because I’d be in too much pain to work. Although now that I already lost one ovary, this would only be every other month, so they’d get a bargain.

Once I did lose the other ovary to an ovarian cyst, which is highly likely since it happened already, that is an operation with three days of hospital stay which would probably help increase premium. Plus I’d be out of work at least two to four weeks. I’ve already done this, so I know.

Then, because I’m not on the pill anymore and my hormones kick into overdrive, my desire to have sex returns as well as my biological clock ticking so loud that you could hear it across the country, I decide to have kids, so I
– get a surrogate egg, or maybe I froze one of mine and get in-vitro fertilization treatments. That may or may not be covered but the result still is.
– get preggers before I lose the ovary in a last hurrah effort. No cost to the company for this part. I can do it on my own. Although I might just go to a sperm bank. Maybe that is covered if in-vitro is covered.
– I could adopt, which sometimes the company helps to cover.

Any way, insurance is now paying for
– my prenatal care
– the cost of the birth which might require a c-section because of previous operations.

And the company is paying for
– my maternity leave plus finding others to do my job while I’m gone.
– more sick days than I used to so I can care for my child
– another dependent on the insurance plan

I am not against people having kids, and I am not against reproductive services or families being covered by insurance. I have family and friends and coworkers who have done all of these things and I’d like to think I might some day. But if any company wants to bring up the cost of birth control as why they shouldn’t offer it, they should know it will cost them a lot more not to cover it.

And let’s not forget, if my employer is not providing contraception because of their moral objection to it, I will be raising my child as an agnostic democrat and sending them to a left-wing, liberal college. So bringing another child into this overpopulated world may not be what they ultimately intended in the long run.


3 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by David on March 4, 2012 at 8:32 am

    Actually I was concerned that giving an allowance for opting out of the company insurance would be deadly to small businesses that offer insurance. For some companies it may be enough to convince them, but for others it would probably just mean that they completely retract insurance as a benefit instead.

    I personally think that contraception should be fully covered by insurance and see no reason for it not to be, and your arguments just add to that. Not to mention that insurance companies aren’t the ones complaining about the new rule either.


  2. I guess I should have explicitly said that if it is too costly for a company to offer for employees to opt-out because there are enough employees wanting to opt-out, then maybe it would make financial sense for them to offer contraception in their plans.


  3. Posted by David on March 4, 2012 at 9:45 am

    It *would* make sense. But sadly I don’t think we’re dealing with rational people.

    Consider that the ones that are most concerned about birth control are either celibate or completely immune to the cost of contraception. And that the biggest attack on the entire debate (and coincidently the biggest lie) is that we’re talking about government funding instead of a mandate on private spending.

    The real nail in the coffin for me is that such a mandate is actually more legal /without/ a religious exemption. No one talks about that because doing so would be political suicide, but constitutionally it can be construed as an endorsement of religions whom are against birth control. For the same reasons, no one would actually challenge the law on such a basis.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: