File: 

sarann.flv

Following the uncomfortable and awkward John McCain interview on July 10th, in which presidential nominee McCain refused to discuss the issue, the debate over whether birth control should be covered by insurance companies is again in the forefront of the media. The argument stems from most insurance companies coverage of the popular erectile dysfunction (ED) medication Viagra, while nearly an estimated half of traditional indemnity plans and preferred provider organizations, 20 percent of point-of-service networks, and 7 percent of HMOs cover no contraceptive methods other than sterilization.

Critics site two main reasons for this:
1. The cost of covering birth control would greatly increase insurance premiums and
2. ED is a medical condition whereas pregnancy is a normal function of the body.

In response, the counterarguments seem relatively simple to me. As for the economic issue, the costs of birth and labor greatly outweigh the cost of oral contraception, a pill that has been around for nearly 40 years, with many generic alternatives. There has been no solid evidence to date that covering the cost of contraception would increase subscriber premiums. The argument that ED is a medical condition and not a natural function of the body is laughable at best. ED is the result of aging for most men, the result of the body functioning naturally, just as a woman ovulating the result of a natural function. While many flaws can be found in both arguments, it is in the opinion of this young woman, that it is simply a case of fairness and not moral, technical or economic issues. Studies have shown that women of reproductive age spend about two-thirds more than men on out-of-pocket health-care costs. Birth control and reproductive health-care services are believed to account for much of the difference.

That is simply not fair. While there can be no equivalent medication to birth control for men, due to its association with sexual function, Viagra is the closest comparison that can be drawn.