I noticed something interesting in my health insurance policy about birth control coverage...

altairisdebin · 2013-11-06T06:42:40+00:00

I'm a little confused, since Vasectomies are VASTLY less complicated and risky than any method of female sterilization procedure I've ever heard of...It'd be interesting to get a rationalization for this policy from the Insurance company...

unclefisty · 2013-11-06T10:28:05+00:00

It's free for women because the ACA mandates that it be free for women

http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/

I doubt there is any such mandate for men.

typhonblue · 2013-11-06T05:46:45+00:00

Hey. If this was happening to women in reverse, we'd already have a petition with several hundred thousand signatures on it, mainstream media would have covered it and feminists would have worked themselves into a outragegasm over it.

But it's just men's reproductive options so… meh. Who cares, right?

Miss_anthropyy · 2013-11-06T07:23:40+00:00

I think I see partially what is going on here. There are several conditions where the removal of the ovaries and/or uterus are necessary to fix problems or prevent more serious future problems, such as certain cancers. These would be classified under female sterilization. It is in the best interest of the insurance company to pay for this since it prevents more expense further down the road.

Still, it is odd that they don't differentiate between contaceptive sterilization and sterilization for medical reasons.

taruun · 2013-11-06T10:10:55+00:00

Isn't this just about making money? If a woman gets sterilized, then the insurance company does not have to pay up for any health care related to pregnancy. Assuming this is an individual plan and not some kind of family plan, then the male's insurance never pays for that stuff anyway, so a sterilized man is not an advantage to the insurance company.

I'm not very familiar with US health insurance, but to me this seems to just be a company trying to make money...

Demonspawn · 2013-11-06T07:11:26+00:00

Welcome to "equality".

That's all there really is to say about it.

SchrodingersRapist · 2013-11-06T14:14:30+00:00

If it really bugs you I would check locally because there might be something at work here aside from a bias by the insurance. If either local(state) laws are forcing them to not charge women for these services or some local organization is ponying up the money it would normally cost to cover it for only women. If it is indeed just the insurance agency that's pretty fucked up considering the difference in procedures for their complexity and recovery.

Not saying either of the first reasons are right, but I would be curious as to exactly why this is if it isn't just the insurance.

2013-11-06T14:48:46+00:00

Keep in mind: 'outpatient' is pretty much the standard choice for vasectomy. So we're actually only looking at a $25 difference.

BUT, it seems bizarre that they wouldn't cover more in the event of complications leading to inpatient hospital stay--which is pretty much the only reason it wouldn't be outpatient.

2013-11-06T12:49:11+00:00

Seems to me if men have to pay the same rates as women then women should pay the same for auto insurance and life insurance.

secret2594 · 2013-11-06T15:51:54+00:00

That's ridiculous.

Ma99ie · 2013-11-06T17:19:36+00:00

Aren't you grateful that women are now not paying more for the "same benefits?"

Miss_anthropyy · 2013-11-06T17:42:54+00:00

Interesting, considering it's typically much harder for women to get a sterilization than for men to get one (just check out /r/childfree for more info).

Raudskeggr · 2013-11-06T21:12:33+00:00

First let me say that I agree that this is unfair.

Allow me to shed some light on why this may be happening. Often female sterilization procedures (which are not the same as birth control as far as I understand, correct me if I am wrong) are risky and often irreversible. That coupled with the fact that many women of child bearing age have trouble finding doctors that are even willing to conduct such procedures indicates that such they are not often used as a replacement for birth control, but rather as a means of preventing complications with the female reproductive system that may have very little to do with pregnancy. So to argue that a woman can easily get a procedure like this in place of birth control is misunderstanding their purpose. Are vasectomies used to treat male reproductive issues in some way other than sterilization? If so, we may have a different debate on our hands. :)

Beyond the fact that female sterilization procedures are not always used to prevent pregnancy, I would like to think that they are free to women through the ACA because 9-month pregnancies are considerable burdens (welcome or not) that women should not have to carry if they don't want to. I don't mean to sound condescending but men simply don't get pregnant and THAT might be why we are seeing legislation that unfairly delegitimizes male sterilization procedures. While I don't believe that vasectomies allow the same amount of autonomous control of a woman's choices that female sterilization (and birth control) procedures do, I do agree that they are still unfairly viewed as cosmetic.

Let me reiterate, I don't think this kind of thing is fair, as any procedure that enables greater control over reproductive decisions for men or women should be enabled by law. I simply mean to point out that women, who ultimately carry the physical burden of and risks associated with pregnancy have been enabled into taking control of their reproduction before men. Fair? No. But this is where we are in our society... and I am grateful for MRAs for bringing this to my attention.

kaluh_glarski · 2013-11-06T22:10:26+00:00

wow, thats jacked.

quaintmercury · 2013-11-06T06:53:13+00:00

This sucks but it makes sense. Insurance companies are in it to make money not take a stand about equality or not. Quite simply they can get away with this and that's fine. This is a social problem and things like this are a symptom not a statement. If we want to change this we need to make men's reproductive rights an important issue as a people not get upset with companies for trying to make as much profit as they can. If they could charge the same for women's procedures they would but they can't because of the uproar it would create.

bsutansalt · 2013-11-06T12:39:41+00:00

What the actual fuck?!

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2013-11-06T16:48:18+00:00

If a woman at any point has to wait for her birth control pills that's declared a war on women.

So deliberately making men pay for their reproductive strategies while giving it to women (at men's expense largely) would be a war on men would it not?

nihilist_nancy · 2013-11-06T11:13:51+00:00

But men pay more thanks to Obamacare. Misandry don't real.

sigh.

nobody2000 · 2013-11-06T12:56:02+00:00

So much wrong here:

"What do you think, should we make a vastly easier, safer, and cheaper procedure more or less expensive?

More, because patriarchy.

Also - I saw this on some stupid online jpg, but it makes sense. Would you rather be shot at by a gun that cannot fire bullets, or be shot at but be wearing a bulletproof vest?

Finally, if feminists aren't also making a stink about this, then they're fucking pathetic, and it shows that maybe they're a bit more concerned about economics than actual rights and personal safety. It is IN THEIR BEST INTEREST for this to be free for men.

Less incentive for a woman to go through an invasive procedure
More effective (again, shooting blanks vs. shooting at a bulletproof vest).
An actually equitable solution for both sexes, should either one choose to be sterilized (because all they want is equality, right...RIGHT!?!)

rPAHT · 2013-11-06T08:28:17+00:00

I think a lot of people here are giving too much credence to their gut reaction here. If there is any place in the world that isn't going to give an unjustified bias in their practices it is going to be the insurance industry. They are doing business to reduce their future liability as much as possible. And their formula for estimating their liability is quite simple.

You take the estimated cost of one situation (S¹ ) and multiply it by the likelihood of it occurring (P¹ ) and then add the cost of the preventative measures (M¹ ). You then compare it to the cost of another situation (S² ) multiplied by its likelihood (P² ) with its added preventative measure (M² ) . In both our situations the situation (pregnancy) represents a huge cost to the insurance agency. differentiating factor here is that a sterile female has no chance of getting pregnant whereas an sterile male cannot guarantee that their insured partner will remain true to them. If you add in the costs of preventative measures you come up with the question of is "if (P¹ ) =0 and (S¹ ) =(S² ) then is (M¹ ) < (S¹ )*(P² ) + (M² )?"

If they are giving free female sterilization then I'm guessing that the answer was yes. They concluded that the extra cost of providing female sterilization was cheaper than the risk of a female spouse cheating on her sterile partner. I bet the only reason that they charge for male sterilization is that they want to provide economic disincentives for couples opting for the second choice. If the choice was left up to the insured, male sterilization would be picked 9 times out of 10 for reasons already given by other commenter's and the insurance agency does not like that choice.

Autumnanox · 2013-11-06T14:55:34+00:00

Tubal ligation is sometimes performed for non-birth control reasons. There are conditions that can cause pregnancy to be health threatening (even life threatening) in females. As far as I know vasectomy is never performed for any other reason than to prevent pregnancy.

philosarapter · 2013-11-06T15:18:37+00:00

Mandatory coverage for female birth control was included in the recent Affordable Care Act. No mention of anything for guys though. It sucks but in a way, female birth control does help men avoid situations where they are trapped by pregnancy. I agree we should have across the board support for all methods of birth control, but oh well.

Everex210 · 2013-11-06T15:40:00+00:00

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the reason behind this is because a majority of women choose to do this right after delivering a child, thus they already have the woman open and that reduces the costs. When they start cutting your nut sack open for having a child and can thus reduce the cost of the vasectomy and are able to roll everything together, maybe that will change? Also, you pointed out the fact that a vasectomy is an inpatient procedure, rather than requiring a hospital stay. As I pointed out, they roll all costs pertaining to a hospital stay together and the insurance will pay much less for everything that way.

VoodooIdol · 2013-11-06T17:45:38+00:00

I think that this is generally because full-fledged female sterilization procedures (which having your tubes tied is not one) are done for medical reasons and not as an elective.

I fully admit, however, that this is speculation and that I could very well be wrong.

SignoreReddit · 2013-11-06T19:22:55+00:00

It's obviously unfair to men to charge for this when women get a free option, but I can see a negative side to this for women as well. Say a couple want to explore sterilization options, and money is an issue for them. They would likely opt for the female sterilization method, which I think is a more complicated and potentially dangerous procedure compared to a vasectomy. This exposes a woman to a higher level of surgical risk than if the vasectomy were a free option. This policy is bad for men and women.

2013-11-06T19:46:31+00:00

Look at it this way, now you can ask your wife to get her tubes tied (an invasive dangerous procedure) instead of getting a vasectomy (a much less dangerous procedure.)

2013-11-06T21:40:42+00:00

Interesting. This could be because more often than not, there are more failures and complications when a woman gets sterilized as opposed to when a man gets a vasectomy. Your insurance probably takes those statistics into account because the woman is more likely to have more expensive follow up appointments due to these failures or complications (that they may have to eventually pay for). Also, keep in mind how for many years women were the ones who had to pay for a number of different kinds of (expensive) birth including hormone altering and invasive procedures, not to mention the price of abortion. Men could either pull out or buy condoms (I know women can buy condoms top but the man would need to consent for proper usage). Regardless though, you do bring up an interesting topic.

duglock · 2013-11-06T13:27:51+00:00

Don't forget, in a lot of states the man can't get fixed without written consent from his wife. To me that is worse then having to pay more. What happened to "My body, my choice"?

choomguy · 2013-11-06T11:40:42+00:00

Let's keep in mind a couple of things

This isomer ins company , I m sure ther is wild variation pre aca
The typical venue for vasectomy is the third option, which results Ina 25 copay
Of course it is biased towards females
Most men will not bitch about a couple of bucks either way
I was not surprised my ins co paid for it, it's a no brainer, given the alternatives. A no complication child berth is prob 100k these days, anyone know? My last was around 30k and routine.
Realistically, sterilizing the male is probably not the best for ins co.. Female could still get pregnant by others, and would result in costs to ins co.
Wholesale sterilization of either sex may be a good/bad thing depending on you views. Personally I would think it should be incentivized after some number of kids. Overpopulation is the elephant in the room that no politician will ever talk about, except in china. Most of modern civilizations problems, whether you subscribe to them or not are a function of population.

2013-11-06T17:00:57+00:00

So do something about it. Take action. Get in touch with your insurance company or other men who are on the same plan, and see if you can't get the policy changed because it is discriminatory. It can't hurt to try.

ProfVanDusen · 2013-11-06T05:08:56+00:00

Well, the young men who frequent this site voted for him. They didn't realize he doesn't care about them, despite the fact it was obvious. He cares only about their sisters.

But, anyway, if they survive the next three years, they'll probably vote for Hillary, because they never seem to learn.

Hope they never get sick, or they'll have to find a young woman to support them.

JakalDX · 2013-11-06T08:30:38+00:00

I'm just gonna go out on a limb here, is this Premera? Seems a lot like their benefit info from when I worked there.

bobes_momo · 2013-11-06T13:50:17+00:00

Is this even fucking legal?! What provider do you have? I say boycott them. Let their business go to hell!

kundertaker · 2013-11-06T17:30:52+00:00

This picture isn't about rights, it's just about actuarial science. The insurance companies just want to make sure their holding enough money for possible procedures and still make money.

The difficulty of the procedure doesn't even matter. It is a cost & probability scenario.

I think people have a right to be upset about it, but I'm not really sure if there is an answer.

iNQpsMMlzAR9 · 2013-11-06T08:03:56+00:00

I'm OK with this. When we hunt deer, if we want to keep the population under control, we shoot the does. Dead doe means no baby, dead buck means another buck is gunna breed that doe anyway.

Any sniff of men getting fucked over takes a big second place to me next to keeping the population in check. Stupid monkeys.

Hurensohn · 2013-11-06T05:22:16+00:00

I kind of agree, but at the same time the risks that these surgeries are most often carried out to mitigate are different between the two sexes - just another example of a situation where, due to simple differences (equality is a general rule, it can have exceptions), policies vary between sexes. The risks for a man who is party to an accidental pregnancy are financial at worst, for the woman they involve significant health risks (death, etc.)

jarret_g · 2013-11-06T15:59:31+00:00

Where do you live? Just curious. They can probably justify this due to the mandatory time off work women need to give birth and care for a newborn. Which opens another can of worms regarding parental leave and the labour laws around it.

kurokabau · 2013-11-06T18:52:46+00:00

This looks oversimplified. We need to know the health risks associated with each one. I don't believe both are used purely for contraceptive. We don't need to be outraged until the science is researched.

2013-11-06T20:34:54+00:00

I hate, hate, to agree with Sarah Palin but this is what she meant by 'death panels'. This is not a choice made by keeping the patients health care in mind or even economics. This is purely political. A vasectomy is simpler and cheaper than a tubal libation. Insurance definitely would rather have you have a vasectomy and therefore give you incentive to pick it over the more expensive and complicated option. As a pretty left leaning person, I always said that I would rather deal with a government bureaucrat than a corporate bureaucrat, but now I realize that I was wrong.

Vash007corp · 2013-11-07T13:38:34+00:00

Women tend to pay more for healthcare over all so I think we are doing better on this one.

tr3k · 2013-11-06T09:52:41+00:00

Men make more money than women so mathematically this is fair.

/s

Title	I noticed something interesting in my health insurance policy about birth control coverage...
Author	Raudskeggr
Upvotes	863
Comments	283
Date	November 6, 2013 4:44 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1q08e7/i_noticed_something_interesting_in_my_health/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/i-noticed-something-interesting-in-my-health.1159522 https://theredarchive.com/post/1159522

Comments