Why is birth control coverage such a contentious subject? (injection, votes, children)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems like every couple weeks, I'm getting an e-mail from Planned Parenthood about the ongoing battle to get birth control covered in health plans. Why? What is the big deal about covering the pill?
Is it because all health insurance plans are mandated to give away free birth control pills?
Insurance companies learned long ago it's more cost efficient to pay for pregnancy prevention than pregnancies themselves. They have no problems with covering anything that will save them money, it's what they do. There is no morality involved in those business decisions.
From what been able to pick up here is that most people are fine with that AS LONG AS THERE IS A COPAY (regardless of the amount apparently). A few die hards don't think it should be covered at all since having sex is a choice and you should fully pay for your own choices, but they are at battle with the insurance companies who think otherwise..see above..and conveniently ignore all the other choices we make that effect our health care. It also ignores human biology and the fact that pretty much everyone is or is going to have sex. It's not so much a choice as what we are biologically programmed to do. Except in the minds of those who want to get specific about who is doing what, when, why, how.
The really wierd stuff comes into play when people think employers and companies can tell insurance companies what they want/don't want their plans to cover while people are in their employ. Isn't that odd?
I agree with all this except the "regardless of the amount" part. If you have a schedule of prescriptions then it's fine to place it on the lowest rung. It's not fine to make it a 1 cent copay. That's just playing games. It should follow the same copay rules that other medications follow, whatever those happen to be for the particular policy. If that means there are a list of ultra commonly used medications that the policy classifies as covered by your premiums without copay, then I support birth control with no copay. The thing I'm against is taking one medication and treating it differently than all other medications, that's all. If others have $100 copay, then it has a $100 copay. If others have a $0 copay, then it has a $0 copay.
You also have some misconceptions (no pun intended) about hormones.
Not at all. Hormones can be very dangerous and many forms of medicine in fact makes things worse. I have arthritis and the doctor wanted me to go on medicine. Long story short I have kept it in remission by diet and exercise. Medicine often makes the person's system dependent on the medicine. I don't trust any hormonal based medicine.
Clouds judgement? It's just as if not more responsible than condoms, especially for those who really don't want to risk a pregnancy.
Nope not at all. Hormones makes people make horrible decisions, like the types of men women sleep with on the pill versus not on it. Best way to prevent pregnancy is not to engage in sex or sterilization. Condoms with spermicide have a high rate of success as do IUDs and Diaphragms.
Is it because all health insurance plans are mandated to give away free birth control pills?
That's what PP wants but PP is a VERY DIRTY organization. They actually want women to get pregnant so they will get abortions there. They also believe in free sex and of course single motherhood. I used to give them money until I found out their dirty secrets. Instead I'd rather give it to an organization that truly does help women get low cost birth control but PP has the monopoly on that.
I'm not even against people getting birth control, I just don't think it should be paid for by taxpayers just like I don't believe anything caused by someone should be paid for like obesity. I managed not to get pregnant or get fat because of being responsible so I don't understand why others can't.
I agree with what you say up until non profit organizations operated by churches. I disagree with them being declared separate from the church. If they are non profit and are run by a church, then the same religious freedoms which apply to churches should apply to them in my opinion.
If a church decides to serve the community by forming a charity to help people, I think it's only needlessly punishing them to say "okay now your freedom of religion no longer applies"
Now f the church decides to run an actual business to make money, that's a whole different thing - then again okay you lose any special rights as a church. You're free to donate the profits back to the church if you want, but the business itself is a business like any other.
And if church members decide to serve the community by forming a charity - then okay, that's nice of them but as individuals they need to follow the same rules as everyone else. But if it is the church itself doing it, I don't think it should lose its religious freedom protections.
I think there is a difference between advocating abstinence and declaring that people need to be responsible for the choices they make. Banning birth control? No. But saying buy your own birth control? Yes. That's not advocating abstinence, it's just saying if you choose to engage in an activity then it's up to you to pay for the costs involved in supporting that activity. If you want to play baseball, then buy your own mitt and baseball bat. If you want to have sex, then buy your own birth control. It's not my responsibility to provide you with a baseball bat so you can play baseball and it isn't my job to provide you with birth control so you can have sex. I'm not forbidding or punishing you for doing it, nor am I telling you not to do it, I'm just saying if you do it then you need to pay the costs of doing it out of your pocket and not out of mine.
Using the existence of an abstinence option as a reason for saying those who choose not to be abstinent should pay for that choice themselves doesn't mean you're advocating that option or trying to control which option they choose. If you can buy a Toyota or a BMW, I'm not required to pay for you to get the BMW just because you like it better. I'm not trying to stop you from getting a BMW I'm just not accepting responsibility for getting you one.
And none of that is saying BC shouldn't be covered by insurance, it's just saying that there should be no federal mandate that all insurance plans must provide BC with no co-pay.
And of course for those social conservative types who actually do advocate for abstinence, none of this applies. I'm against their attempts to push their morality on people. I want to let people do what they want but pay for the choices they make. I'm a conservative but not a social conservative -- If you want to actually limit peoples' choices, then don't count on my support.
I don't think you quite understand the nature of "charitable organizations". My daughter works for a Catholic hospital. It's non-profit, but there is no religious requirement to work there; they charge for their services, they receive federal funds (Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care [this hospital is in a town with a large military presence]), and non-profits PAY their employees and are allowed to keep 15% of their excess. The rest they have to re-invest. I asked her once what their policy was on birth control, and she said the admin said since they couldn't determine who was using it for contraception and who was using it for medical reasons, they were not going to interfere. They are not part of this nonsense with Hobby Lobby, etc.
nope not at all. Hormones makes people make horrible decisions, like the types of men women sleep with on the pill versus not on it. Best way to prevent pregnancy is not to engage in sex or sterilization. Condoms with spermicide have a high rate of success as do iuds and diaphragms.
wth? I can only assume you are speaking from personal experience and your religious conversion has you feeling guilty enough over your past behavior to project onto others.
May I point out that most couples engage in sex so NOT exgaging in it is off the table. Sterilization is fine if you never want kids and if you can stomach and afford the medical procedure, which is a whole other can of worms. Everything else is fine, if a bit messy and less effective than the pill. I've never heard of anyone making a bad decision from being on BCP.
I'm real curious about the "type of men" women sleep with while on BCP though. I'm sure everyone here would love for you to expand on that.
There is a requirement for prenatal care, birth, complications, etc. And pregnancy is a choice too so why is it different? Especially when the costs are astronomical compared to NOT getting pregnant.
It isn't different. That's the point. There are other comparable things but those things don't receive the same treatment. As I said in a post way back, starvation is a medical problem but that doesn't mean medical insurance covers your grocery bill. Heart disease is common, and is the #1 cause of death, but heart medication isn't provided without a copay. You can get a covered visit to the emergency room with severe sunburn, but you don't get suntan lotion provided upon request to prevent that.
And it doesn't matter how much the costs of pregnancies are, because again, this same thing applies to other situations. If you smoke, insurance companies will often cover smoking cessation products and treatments which are far more cost effective than treating the health problems smoking causes. But there's no mandate that all smokers get free nicorette. A voluntary activity where the potential costs are astronomical and yet no mandate that things be provided without a copay because of it.
There's simply no reason that birth control should be mandated to be in a class all by itself. No other medication in existence that I am aware of is mandated by the government to be given away with no copay by all insurance plans.
There's simply no reason that birth control should be mandated to be in a class all by itself. No other medication in existence that I am aware of is mandated by the government to be given away with no copay by all insurance plans.
I can think of a reason but it's about society and money, not health or morals.
Nope not at all. Hormones makes people make horrible decisions, like the types of men women sleep with on the pill versus not on it. Best way to prevent pregnancy is not to engage in sex or sterilization. Condoms with spermicide have a high rate of success as do IUDs and Diaphragms.
I saw that study, women who were on the pill were choosing more effeminate men, and when those same women went off the pill their choice in men changed to more masculine or 'macho' men. When on the pill they were happy with their mate, but when they went off the pill they were more attracted to more macho types of men. In other words, women on the pill were marrying the wrong men, and as soon as they went off the pill they'd wonder why the hell they married this wimpy guy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
