Should male contraceptives be covered by taxpayers?

storffish · 2017-07-06T02:39:37+00:00

they're not covered by taxpayers they're covered by insurance companies. a chick has to pay a (usually damn expensive) premium to get her $5/month birth control or whatever covered. it's little more than an incentive. the only ones who don't pay a premium are those on Medicaid, and birth control is probably the cheapest thing Medicaid covers. be happy you're paying for pills instead of maternity costs. it saves taxpayers a load of money down the road in benefits to children born into poverty.

I'd like for male contraception to be covered too because I'd have been on it years ago but there really isn't any that's prescription. it's a moot point.

[deleted] · 2017-07-06T02:34:30+00:00

My insurance pays almost 100% if I choose to get a vasectomy

But that's not really tax money. Nethier is female birth control

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2017-07-06T02:38:39+00:00

What do you mean by "covered by taxpayers"?

Almost 70% of us adults under 65 have private health ins

fiat_lux_ · 2017-07-06T02:39:07+00:00

They absolutely should be covered. As should paternity leave and lots of other things.

sweet_samsara · 2017-07-06T02:43:48+00:00

Absolutely they should be.

What are your opinions on contraceptives for men not being covered at all by insurance right now?

I feel like it's not true.

PS please learn how insurance works. "Taxpayers" don't pay for private health insurance.

[deleted] · 2017-07-06T02:35:38+00:00

I'm in favor of it from a harm reduction standpoint. Much cheaper for taxpayers to cover BC than the cost of welfare for OOW babies and single mothers.

Butt-Factory · 2017-07-06T03:22:06+00:00

Considering I believe in universal medical care, absolutely.

Realistically, we'll be looking at a setup similar to what we have now for women. Men's insurance rates will likely go up if they want bc coverage. Low income men can go to PP or similar clinics to get discounted or sliding scale birth control.

[deleted] · 2017-07-06T03:24:06+00:00

If "by taxpayers" you mean "by insurance" then of course. Easy access to contraception keeps the unwanted pregnancy rate down, which actually does save taxpayers money in the long run. The same arguments that could be made for the female contraceptives could all apply to male contraceptives.

rulenumber303 · 2017-07-06T07:51:34+00:00

They already are subsidised to a large extent, condoms are given away free in some sexual health clinics. If someone asks themselves "Where can I find something to stop conception and find it free" the first and least complicated answer in many places is going to be one of those free condoms.

I can't really give a blanket yes or no to your question. Every contraceptive has a different cost to benefit profile and not every female contraceptive gets covered to the same extent. I can't see any reasons why male contraceptives shouldn't be subject to similar decision making processes putting similar weight on the user's desire to prevent conception.

quotient_is · 2017-07-06T11:57:26+00:00

All current male birth control methods should be covered by insurance, yes. Whether that insurance is tax payer funded or not.

The ACA did away with age-sex rating for health insurance, which is why women used to pay so much more than men. Well, sort of. There are still grandfathered plans out there that use this method, but they're supposed to transition by next year.

This may no longer be the case within a few years, but we'll see. If male birth control options are expanded, and I believe they will be within the next ten years, then the cost of covering those services should be spread out over everyone's premiums as well. If male BC has medical benefit like female BC, great. If it doesn't, my opinion is still the same. The benefits outweigh the cost.

To be fair, vasectomies are already covered by almost all private insurance plans. They're around six times cheaper than a tubal ligation, so insurance companies would much rather cover them.

RockinSocksII · 2017-07-06T02:47:44+00:00

Should have the same level of coverage as female contraceptives. Right now, I think it's just insurance based.

i_have_a_semicolon · 2017-07-06T03:17:12+00:00

Thought most insurance companies covered vasectomies. I support male BC as a right to be insured and paid for by insurance. Insurance can't opt out.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2017-07-06T03:21:55+00:00

I think it's a sensible policy to have the public cover everything to do with birth control.

A common claim is that if men got pregnant there would be free abortion clinics on every corner.

The lack of interest in providing men with good BC options proves that isn't true.

pinkgoldrose · 2017-07-06T03:32:04+00:00

I'm in Canada and I've always paid for female contraceptives with my own money.

sunshine99ss · Thu Jul 6 5:07:19 2017 UTC

Yes, I think so. After all, would we not benefit most as a society by allowing those who can least afford children to opt out until they choose to have children? If a guy is struggling to afford contraceptives, he won't be able to afford a child yet.

Entropy-7 · 2017-07-06T07:41:40+00:00

I can be accused of being fascist and racist because those were the guys who suggested policy measures like this, but I agree with them in the current societal context.

Maybe I am and maybe I'm not given the observation that the wogs fuck stupid women and mess up the gene pool.

Maybe one immigration requirement should be a vasectomy.

[deleted] · 2017-07-06T09:30:10+00:00

Sure, why not?

I'm in the UK and the NHS is planning to cover Vaselgel once it's actually approved. At least it is listed on their site as an upcoming treatment anyway.

AllahHatesFags · 2017-07-06T13:36:28+00:00

Yes, we need Vasalgel to be fast-tracked and then be free to any man who wants it!

nonnimoose · 2017-07-06T13:52:52+00:00

Yes, all forms of contraceptive should be covered. Why would premiums go up? Childbirth and abortion are more costly covered expenses than contraceptives.

[deleted] · 2017-07-06T17:20:48+00:00

Yes, absolutely. I think all contraceptives (for both sexes) should be covered by health insurance. Viagra on the other hand, definitely shouldn't be, even though it currently is. Society benefits from keeping unwanted children from being born, it does not benefit from old horndogs keeping their dicks hard.

AutoModerator · 2017-07-06T02:31:50+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[deleted] · 2017-07-06T03:44:02+00:00

ClarityofDisaster · 2017-07-06T09:48:09+00:00

I think they definitely should be, both for types that are currently available and for procedures that will hopefully become viable options soon, like Vasalgel.

As for whether taxpayers should? Eh, in the US we kinda do and kinda don't. For example, I already pay for private health insurance through my employer and I'm obviously a taxpayer...nothing is free. But I'm guessing you mean things like Medicaid and Medicare? Male and female taxpayers already pay for those programs too.

midnightvulpine · 2017-07-06T10:14:52+00:00

It should be. We still have a significant problem in the US with accidental birth and you g pregnancy. Birth control should be freely available. But there should still be a lot of attention for condoms because while pregnancy is an issue, diseases are as well.

stairstepper357 · 2017-07-06T10:25:06+00:00

Are you asking if they should be covered by taxpayers or by insurance?

octopusplatipus · 2017-07-06T11:54:27+00:00

Yes they should be as there is strong correlation crime rate and birth rate. Lower birth rate lower crime rate.

BPremium · 2017-07-06T12:17:18+00:00

yes, 100% they should be covered

CrestfallenWolf · 2017-07-06T13:16:22+00:00

Male contraception should be produced first... I feel like this conversation is moot when male contraception isn't even being funded.

purpleppp · 2017-07-06T14:07:44+00:00

As long as childbirth is subsidized, contraceptives are a cheaper option and should also be subsidized.

alcockell · 2017-07-06T18:01:13+00:00

Vasectomies/RISUG/Vasalgel on the NHS? Yes.

General_Surgicus · 2017-07-06T12:13:14+00:00

The only things covered by insurance should be acts of god, not personal choices. Being sexually irresponsible male or female shouldnt be covered by insurance. Got a shit deal and now you have full on huntingtons cuz your parents are assholes? Covered by insurance.

Title	Should male contraceptives be covered by taxpayers?
Author	sweet_samsara
Upvotes	10
Comments	70
Date	July 6, 2017 2:31 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/6liukd/should_male_contraceptives_be_covered_by_taxpayers/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/should-male-contraceptives-be-covered-by-taxpayers.267154 https://theredarchive.com/post/267154

Comments