View Full Version : Obama mandate: birth control must be free
Well, here we go. The first of many rules and regs in the Obama Health Care plan.
Why women a cannot pay anything, not even a nominal fee for products they use, is beyond me. I guess it must be because they are poor, helpless creatures. Even women with good jobs and excellent insurance coverage won't have to pay! Who would have thought that they were incapable as well? I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! (not.)
I agree with the panel that recommended this, that prevention of unintended pregnancies is basic to a woman's health. But without any skin in the game the products won't be valued. Something in human psychology causes us to de-value material products that are free of our own investment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/obama-admin-insurers-must-cover-womens-preventive-care-including-birth-control-no-copays/2011/08/01/gIQAGOVLnI_story.html
I'm reminded of an old commercial from the 80s for motor oil. "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later." If even 1 in 50 women who doesn't want a kid doesn't get birth control because they can't afford it and then even a small percentage of those women without birth control has a kid the ultimate costs will likely be far higher than whatever we could possibly collect in co-payments for birth control. Top that with all the angst over the idea that, god forbid, government pay for the abortion of a woman who doesn't want their child, the idea that government would at least pay for her birth control seems like a reasonable compromise.
loosechickens
8-4-11, 12:25am
Personally, I'm just glad to see the increasing emphasis on preventative care, which is, after all, key to preventing much larger expenses later. Birth control just being one of many things where "a stitch in time saves nine".
Large numbers of insurance plans covered Viagra and similar drugs for men, while not covering birth control products for women, which actually HAVE some medical necessity, unlike the stiffening agents.......
I think it's a great idea, and as the link you posted said that research shows that even modest copays for this kind of care discourages use, not having a barrier of a copay will encourage even poor women to use contraceptives, and prevent a lot of unwanted pregnancies, which we should all applaud.
Not a problem to me. I like the idea.
AND, it should bring costs DOWN, because you can provide birth control to many, many women for the cost of even one unintended pregnancy.
loosechickens
8-4-11, 12:29am
From the link you posted, I also like these provisions, in addition to the providing of birth control:
Other preventive services covered include:
—At least one “well-woman” preventive care visit annually.
—Screening for diabetes during pregnancy.
—Screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer for women 30 and older.
—Annual HIV counseling and screening for sexually active women.
—Screening for and counseling about domestic violence.
—Annual counseling on sexually transmitted infections for sexually active women.
—Support for breast feeding mothers, including the cost of renting pumps.
--------------------------------
These provisions should prevent a lot of costly illness, offer education regarding risks, etc., and in the end, should save a bundle in health care costs from the "stitch in time saving nine" outlook.
I like it.
loosechickens
8-4-11, 12:37am
This from Cecile Richards, the President of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
WHY BIRTH CONTROL WITH NO CO-PAYS IS A GREAT THING!
10. Everyone uses it! Ninety-nine percent of sexually active women in America have used it to prevent unintended pregnancy.
9. Birth control does lots of good things for women, in addition to helping them plan their families! Some forms of birth control are used to prevent anemia and endometriosis, and can help prevent ovarian and endometrial cancers.
8. Too many women in the U.S. have unintended pregnancies, and a big part of it is lack of access to birth control. The U.S. has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancy among the world's most developed countries, and half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned.
7. Birth control can be expensive! Even with insurance, many women end up paying $50 a month for birth control pills, and much more for longer-acting methods like the IUD. More than half of women in the U.S. between ages 18 and 34 say the cost of birth control has made it harder for them to use it consistently.
6. It's good for the budget! Today, unintended pregnancy costs the U.S. taxpayers $11 billion a year. For every $1 we invest in making birth control accessible, taxpayers save nearly $4 in the costs of unintended pregnancy.
5. Birth control access in the U.S. is unequal -- just like health care access -- and it's time that every woman had the ability to plan when to have children. For example, nearly 60 percent of young adult Latina women and more than half of young adult African-American women have struggled to pay for prescription birth control.
4. Affordable birth control means better birth control. When cost is not a concern, women are more likely to choose more effective birth control methods. Imagine -- making your birth control decision based on what fits you rather than what fits your wallet!
3. Women with unintended pregnancies may end up with less education, earn less, and have a harder time supporting their families. Their children may be less likely to finish high school.
2. And it's not just birth control! The announcement by HHS also includes coverage without co-pays for cervical cancer and HPV screenings, counseling and screening for HIV, counseling for STDs, and other important preventive care.
And the #1 Reason: No woman in America should ever have to choose between groceries and birth control again!
=============================
this excerpted from a piece by Ms. Richards at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cecile-richards/birth-control-you-can-aff_b_917407.html
to see her full comments.
The skin in the game as I see it is pregnancy prevention. That's a pretty darn good motivator...
this is a step forward for women and our country. No complaints from me.
I wonder what the actual effect on the "unintended" birthrate (or perhaps the better measure would be fertility rate) will be. I was shocked and surprised out of my young adult idealism when I worked in a prenatal clinic in the early 1990s. We made all sorts of birth control accessible (yes, it was free, and that included the most up-to-date methods of the day: norplant). It was also accessible in that even if you didn't want to see a doc, there were handsfuls of condoms there for the taking. We still had many, many unplanned pregnancies. I put "unintended" in quotes because that's a significant ambiguity. If you ask someone after the pregnancy is confirmed whether it was planned, the answer is often no. However, people's sexual behaviour would suggest that they often have no idea how pregnancy happens. I am not just referring to women, by the way....and I also, idealistically, thought that education was The Answer.
Sorry for cynicism early in the morning (it is early here, anyway). I think easily available birth control methods are very important. I think the will to take responsibility for one's fertility is harder to come by. But at least for a couple who is willing to take responsibility, money won't be an obstacle.
Maxamillion
8-4-11, 7:03am
This is fantastic. Surely even people on the right could agree--after all, access to birth control for poor people means (a) less abortions, and (b) less children that are being supported by the government. Surely birth control would be cheaper than paying out welfare. Win win for everyone.
Well, here we go. The first of many rules and regs in the Obama Health Care plan.
I agree with the panel that recommended this, that prevention of unintended pregnancies is basic to a woman's health. But without any skin in the game the products won't be valued. Something in human psychology causes us to de-value material products that are free of our own investment.
I fully agree with this mandate - that said I also agree with your statement on free - if they had to send out monthly bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan they would have likely never happened much less continued for so long.
...if they had to send out monthly bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan they would have likely never happened much less continued for so long.
That is a good point and I agree with it.
I wonder what the actual effect on the "unintended" birthrate (or perhaps the better measure would be fertility rate) will be. I was shocked and surprised out of my young adult idealism when I worked in a prenatal clinic in the early 1990s. We made all sorts of birth control accessible (yes, it was free, and that included the most up-to-date methods of the day: norplant). It was also accessible in that even if you didn't want to see a doc, there were handsfuls of condoms there for the taking. We still had many, many unplanned pregnancies. I put "unintended" in quotes because that's a significant ambiguity. If you ask someone after the pregnancy is confirmed whether it was planned, the answer is often no. However, people's sexual behaviour would suggest that they often have no idea how pregnancy happens. I am not just referring to women, by the way....and I also, idealistically, thought that education was The Answer.
Sorry for cynicism early in the morning (it is early here, anyway). I think easily available birth control methods are very important. I think the will to take responsibility for one's fertility is harder to come by. But at least for a couple who is willing to take responsibility, money won't be an obstacle.
yes, exactly.
Well, here we go. The first of many rules and regs in the Obama Health Care plan.
Why women a cannot pay anything, not even a nominal fee for products they use, is beyond me. I guess it must be because they are poor, helpless creatures. Even women with good jobs and excellent insurance coverage won't have to pay! Who would have thought that they were incapable as well? I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! (not.)
I agree with the panel that recommended this, that prevention of unintended pregnancies is basic to a woman's health. But without any skin in the game the products won't be valued. Something in human psychology causes us to de-value material products that are free of our own investment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/obama-admin-insurers-must-cover-womens-preventive-care-including-birth-control-no-copays/2011/08/01/gIQAGOVLnI_story.html
So, you complain about women getting free birth control (which will reduce abortions and welfare) but are perfectly OK with people using the emergency room, on our dime, as health care because you are against requiring them to have even basic health insurance. How do you reconcile this? How do you say 'this group should have to pay, but this other group shouldn't'? Personally I'd rather pick up the tab for birth control than Alan's heart attack (don't have a heart attack Alan!)
See, this is so confusing. Republicans seem to be for personal responsibility for poor people, grandma, and the folks with prior medical conditions, but everyone else, not so much.
And really, they don't need to 'respect' this benefit. They just need to use it!
Well, here we go. The first of many rules and regs in the Obama Health Care plan.
Why women a cannot pay anything, not even a nominal fee for products they use, is beyond me. I guess it must be because they are poor, helpless creatures. Even women with good jobs and excellent insurance coverage won't have to pay! Who would have thought that they were incapable as well? I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! (not.)
I agree with the panel that recommended this, that prevention of unintended pregnancies is basic to a woman's health. But without any skin in the game the products won't be valued. Something in human psychology causes us to de-value material products that are free of our own investment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/obama-admin-insurers-must-cover-womens-preventive-care-including-birth-control-no-copays/2011/08/01/gIQAGOVLnI_story.html
I think it was P. J. O'Rourke who said "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free".
Personally I'd rather pick up the tab for birth control than Alan's heart attack (don't have a heart attack Alan!)
My heart is fine, thank you very much. It is strong, healthy and overflowing with love and affection.
I think the real issue here is the government mandating what private business must provide to it's customers in an effort to ensure that as many people as possible have the least amount of skin in the game at someone else's expense. But I suppose that's another discussion.
DO I see that the phrase "skin in the game" is now a code phrase for opposition to this measure?
DO I see that the phrase "skin in the game" is now a code phrase for opposition to this measure?
Perhaps, or perhaps not. It really depends on how you "see" things. Personally, I don't speak in code as I much prefer straight talk. Your mileage may vary.
Why women a cannot pay anything, not even a nominal fee for products they use, is beyond me.
Why just condemn women? Why can't men pay for their own viagra?
A main reason some on the right do not want to pay for birth control for women is simply because their religion says using any birth control besides the rhythm method is a sin. But they don't want to say this aloud so instead they use silly rationalizations about why 'we shouldn't have to pay for this'.
Yesterday I read the comments of (R-IN) Rep. King saying why should those past reproductive age, or who are single, or celibate priests have to pay for birth control in young women? Well, Rep King, as a female, why should I have to pay for your viagra or prostrate exams? Why should I have to pay for increasing health problems in the aging? Many single people do have sex and for obvious reasons are more concerned with birth control than those who are married. And why should I have to pay for counseling for priests who are pedophiles?
If men could get pregnant, birth control would have been 'free' decades ago.
Why just condemn women? Why can't men pay for their own viagra?
A main reason some on the right do not want to pay for birth control for women is simply because their religion says using any birth control besides the rhythm method is a sin. But they don't want to say this aloud so instead they use silly rationalizations about why 'we shouldn't have to pay for this'.
Yesterday I read the comments of (R-IN) Rep. King saying why should those past reproductive age, or who are single, or celibate priests have to pay for birth control in young women? Well, Rep King, as a female, why should I have to pay for your viagra or prostrate exams? Why should I have to pay for increasing health problems in the aging? Many single people do have sex and for obvious reasons are more concerned with birth control than those who are married. And why should I have to pay for counseling for priests who are pedophiles?
If men could get pregnant, birth control would have been 'free' decades ago.
Are you implying that pregnancy is a disease or other medical abnormality? Cause otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges.
treehugger
8-4-11, 11:49am
I'm not sure if I think that birth control needs to be free to all, because there are plenty of women with good insurance who can pay their prescription copay and get birth control like any other prescription, and it's very affordable (myself included).
But I do see this as a positive for fixing situations like my sister's. Her husband has had a good job with the same large corporation for more than 15 years. They provide great benefits EXCEPT for the fact that no birth control of any kind is covered (they are an LDS-run company). My sister, who has 2 children, has gone on and off birth control over the years; the out of pocket expense is sometimes too much for their budget. This has resulted in one (that I know of) unintended pregnancy.
This really, really bothers her (and me, even though it ain't my business). Companies that provide group health insurance should not be allowed to restrict normal preventative care simply because it does not fit within their values.
Unwanted pregnancies aside, birth control pills are a valuable tool in the women's health toolbox. I don't need birth control yet I am now on a low-dose BC pill to help mitigate some perimenopause issues. That is only possible (on my limited budget) because of my comprehensive, job-related health care.
IMO, the pros of providing free birth control far outweigh the cons.
Kara
"Yesterday I read the comments of (R-IN) Rep. King saying why should those past reproductive age, or who are single, or celibate priests have to pay for birth control in young women? "
Representative King thinks--and said so on the floor of the Senate--that sex is intended for procreation, not recreation. The idea of people enjoying a sex act without paying a heavy price for the sin of lust is a burr under his saddle, it seems.
I think this act is a Good Thing.
I'm actually quite impressed with the policy. It is just another example of some of the things to come in the Affordable Healthcare Plan in the next few years. IMO, preventive care and access to birth control will go a long way in helping curb unwanted pregnancy and women's issues. The lady's deserve it!! IT was pretty obvious the "Just say NO" campaign was a total failure. I asume drugs like "day after" pill will be available also? I always thought no allowing that in many states was stupidity.
Things are looking better for millions of women with this policy so how can that be bad?
Peace
chanterelle
8-4-11, 2:13pm
"Yesterday I read the comments of (R-IN) Rep. King saying why should those past reproductive age, or who are single, or celibate priests have to pay for birth control in young women? "
Representative King thinks--and said so on the floor of the Senate--that sex is intended for procreation, not recreation. The idea of people enjoying a sex act without paying a heavy price for the sin of lust is a burr under his saddle, it seems.
I think this act is a Good Thing.
True, true, true.
This is the 21st century and we still have not come to grips with human sexuality...especially when it concerns women.
Using birth control for these people implies that you are planning to have sex ...OH NO!!!!!
If you are a single woman, this means that you are a slut...without BC you deserve the punishment getting pregnant and being publicly shamed..using BC , well you are just damned to hell for all eternity.
If you are married using BC is at your husbands discretion not yours and when you have sex with him damn you if you actually enjoy it.
Giving a woman access to birth control, low or no cost, means they have control of their lives. These people do not want this for middle class women and definitely not for poor women.
One of the many reasons for pregnancy despite access to BC is due to this stupid stigma...... without understanding, accepting and managing their own sexuality women internalize this slut image can be lax actively using BC ....
I actually had 2 of the local parish crusaders at my door with petitions about his nonsense recently.... I wonder if their ears are still ringing???
All I can say is: YAY!!!! About time. Some things are worth paying for. Afforable - even free - healthcare coverage which includes birth control is one of them IMHO.
My heart is fine, thank you very much. It is strong, healthy and overflowing with love and affection.
I think the real issue here is the government mandating what private business must provide to it's customers in an effort to ensure that as many people as possible have the least amount of skin in the game at someone else's expense. But I suppose that's another discussion.
Really Alan? Really? The governments effort is to make sure as few people as possible have 'skin' in the game? That's their goal? That's their biggest desire?
Calling all slackers! Obama is handing out $20's out the White House back door! This has got to be the silliest assertion I've seen in a long time.
You need to go back and read the health care reform act. Then listen to the republicans and tell me who is trying to promote slackers. The health care reform act says everyone needs to have 'skin' in the game. That is the point of it. And for those who really don't have any skin to give, they will not go untreated.
The democrats tried to have single payer to eliminate the middle man, which would increase efficiency and reduce costs, but the right said not only will we not pay, but we will make sure grandma does have to pay (eliminating medicare) cause, you know, insurers are lining up to write a policy for bad hip, bad heart, arthritic 80 year old grandmas.
Oh and businesses? Those small businesses you keep wringing your hands about? They would benefit the most from a single payer plan. Untie their hands from this, unleash them from the choke hold of health plans, and that would be the single largest boost this economy would ever see. But that would make too much sense, and requires a little foresight, so I'm not expecting anyone on the right to understand.
Hilarious bit by Stephen Colbert: http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-stephen-colbert-on-free-birth-control-and-boner-pills/?eref=RSS
"...free birth control will wipe out the American race ..!"
All I can say is: YAY!!!! About time. Some things are worth paying for. Afforable - even free - healthcare coverage which includes birth control is one of them IMHO.
why? Why this and why not other things that you think are not worth paying for?
This is an example of something that isn't broken that the President feels compelled to fix. Pandering. More of this and the economy will go to h*ll in a handbasket and the Dow will plunge 500 points and...oh, wait.
Sure, the main point is that the gooberment is dictating even more to private business what they must provide for their customers. So that they will go down, just what the White House wants. More of this and the economhy will go to h*ll ...
Peggy I never said that paying for all indigents for all conceivable procedures is ok. I think you know that I never did say that.
And for the record I think and have always thought, even long before this particular mandate, that equating lack of erectile funciton and birth control is stupid. Try equating penile dysfunciton and infertility, that's more like it, and no I am NOT willing to spend public money to solve THAT problem.
I should think this should save us money in the long run, but I suppose it would take a better numbers-cruncher than I to figure it out. Fewer taxpayers and all. At any rate, I'm all for fewer unwanted pregnancies however it comes about.
why? Why this and why not other things that you think are not worth paying for?
Mainly because I see this as a very inexpensive, easy way of solving a much bigger, much more long term, and MUCH more expensive problems - abortions, unwanted births to people who will be collecting welfare and other social services over a long period of time, children in foster care, education costs, medical costs, housing costs, etc... etc... and on and on. And I didn't say I was agaisnt paying for certain social services for people who have children, I said I think we need a different way of handling the situation rather than just throwing money at it. That doesn't make the problems go away - actually makes them worse IMHO.
I also see this cutting the number of abortions down.
Lainey,
Thanks for sharing that link. It was hysterical!
What she said--absolutely perfect!
i have a different perspective, now that i live in a socialized medical system.
i believe that the US should work toward a socialized system. it just works.
yes, there are problems. but there are not the problems that there are in the US with medical costs being extreme. Alternative therapies are accessible as well. it's just worthwhile.
I think it should be handled in districts of roughly 4-10 million people. Our system covers 4 million. But, the UK's covers more.
And while people do have complaints, the reality is that they are small incomparison, and everyone whom I know who lives in a socialized system (like the UK, Canada, Switzerland, France, NZ, etc) is that the US system is completely nuts and doesn't provide real coverage nor does it drive costs down.
loosechickens
8-6-11, 2:39pm
"i have a different perspective, now that i live in a socialized medical system.
i believe that the US should work toward a socialized system. it just works.
yes, there are problems. but there are not the problems that there are in the US with medical costs being extreme. Alternative therapies are accessible as well. it's just worthwhile.
I think it should be handled in districts of roughly 4-10 million people. Our system covers 4 million. But, the UK's covers more.
And while people do have complaints, the reality is that they are small incomparison, and everyone whom I know who lives in a socialized system (like the UK, Canada, Switzerland, France, NZ, etc) is that the US system is completely nuts and doesn't provide real coverage nor does it drive costs down. " (zoebird)
--------------------------------------------------------------
From your lips to God's ear, as my grandmother used to say.........
The problem in this country is that we have been propagandized by the for profit "health care" industry, and by those with ideology that sees most anything "governmental" as evil, probably communist, etc., and "socialism" as a dirty word, (although just try to pry the Medicare card from our Seniors of whatever political persuasion), to the point where it seems impossible.
We pay twice as much on a per capita basis, have three quarters of a million families going bankrupt from medical bills every year, and many tens of millions with no coverage at all. It IS a mess.
And these feeble attempts to address some of the worst of the problems are the maximum that we were able to get passed, which is really a bandaid on a festering wound, but the fear of "socialism" in this country is extreme. The word is literally a bogeyman, and until that changes not much else will.
Also, as a country, we are really parochial, have the idea that anything American has to be "the best", and are unwilling to look at how pretty much every other developed free nation has solved this problem. We continue to live, in effect, without the wheel, carrying the burdens on our backs, and I guess it will continue that way until the whole thing just breaks down to the point where we can look at other options. It's a mess, for sure, and to me, a national embarassment. JMHO
Well, all this hand wringing is really over blown. All the health care reform act says is, insurance policies must now cover birth control pills. Big deal! Last I checked, I pay for my health care coverage. They are only free in the way 'buy one, get one free' is free.
I just wish, instead of getting all spun up over nothing, folks would actually READ the health care reform act. I know watching Fox and listening to Rush Beck is so much easier, but this is a case where everyone really needs to read the act. You might be surprised to learn it was actually written for us, we the people.
loosechickens -- I was just talking to my husband about it this morning! It's amazing how it's really just these false ideas that hold the US back from a real health care system. So sad really.
There are even some developing nations that actually have pretty decent health care systems -- I saw a program about it -- which are funded in part by the UN. Anyway, while it's not universal coverage (due to lack of people to fill the positions needed), it does attempt to make it possible for people to get the care that they need. I remember one program where midwives were being taught how to give c-sections, because the premature birthrates were so high -- women going into labor early due to violence (it was a war-torn area), and this way, babies and mother's could be saved. fascinating program. i think it was frontline. i love frontline.
Well, all this hand wringing is really over blown. All the health care reform act says is, insurance policies must now cover birth control pills...
yes, that's what this thread is about. Did you just discover that?
I wonder what the actual effect on the "unintended" birthrate (or perhaps the better measure would be fertility rate) will be. I was shocked and surprised out of my young adult idealism when I worked in a prenatal clinic in the early 1990s. We made all sorts of birth control accessible (yes, it was free, and that included the most up-to-date methods of the day: norplant). It was also accessible in that even if you didn't want to see a doc, there were handsfuls of condoms there for the taking. We still had many, many unplanned pregnancies. I put "unintended" in quotes because that's a significant ambiguity. If you ask someone after the pregnancy is confirmed whether it was planned, the answer is often no. However, people's sexual behavior would suggest that they often have no idea how pregnancy happens. I am not just referring to women, by the way....and I also, idealistically, thought that education was The Answer.
Sorry for cynicism early in the morning (it is early here, anyway). I think easily available birth control methods are very important. I think the will to take responsibility for one's fertility is harder to come by. But at least for a couple who is willing to take responsibility, money won't be an obstacle.
leslieann....I agree.
There are a lot of people out there who behave as if they do not know what causes pregnancy and will refuse free birth control and seek an abortion later because of belief systems which make it wrong to behave as if you knew you are going to have sex ahead of time and prepare for it, ...not just being swept away by "true love's kiss" when the fates bestow it.
I would start birth control by making Harlequin Romances, Hollywood romantic comedies and Nora Roberts illegal. Blech!
No Iris, this thread was intended to lead people to believe they were going to just start handing out birth control to everyone on the governments dime. You know, free to everyone.(although it's certainly understood that by everyone we mean poor/foreign/useless undesirables) And of course President Obama is behind this horribly socialistic free-for-all. That's what this tread is about. To mislead, and redirect. We certainly wouldn't want anyone to believe the health care reform act is actually a good thing, designed to help all of us, or let anyone for a moment think about a benefit as anything but bad, socialistic, 'gonna ruin the country' policy.
It's hard to get the peasants spun up if we simply say the health care reform act simply sets rules and regulations for the insurance industry, and insures adequate basic health care for all Americans, cause that doesn't sound scary enough. So we say Obama is going to mandate that everyone gets birth control pills, free. I'm sure death panels are involved there somehow.
No Iris, this thread was intended to lead people to believe they were going to just start handing out birth control to everyone on the governments dime.
Absolutely not. I wrote about mandating insurance coverage. Read the headline if nothing else.
Besides, free birth control already exists for low to no income, it's hardly new.
I did read the headline. "Obama mandate: Birth control must be free"
Well, actually, it's insurance policies must now cover birth control, isn't it. And Obama didn't 'mandate' it, did he. Congress did, in the health care reform act. In fact, unfortunately Obama didn't have very much to do with the reform act, as it turns out. He could have fought for a single payer plan, or even a public option, but he didn't.
So, Obama didn't 'mandate' it and it isn't free for all, is it. In my book, that's misleading.
I did read the headline. "Obama mandate: Birth control must be free"
Well, actually, it's insurance policies must now cover birth control, isn't it. And Obama didn't 'mandate' it, did he. Congress did, in the health care reform act. In fact, unfortunately Obama didn't have very much to do with the reform act, as it turns out. He could have fought for a single payer plan, or even a public option, but he didn't.
So, Obama didn't 'mandate' it and it isn't free for all, is it. In my book, that's misleading.
Actually, I don't think Congress directly mandated it, either. I think HHS was the one who decided this was preventative care. It wouldn't surprise me if Obama or Congress hadn't even considered this possibility.
ApatheticNoMore
8-7-11, 12:49pm
So in return for mandating that we must buy health insurance, it has been mandated that health insurance must provide free birth control. If there is a loser here, it's hard to see it as the health insurance industry (seem around here anyway to be one of the few growing businesses. Ha, that' doesn't exactly make me optimistic about the future either!).
I think more options, accessibility to contraception is a good thing. I guess we will have to see if the lower (no) cost has an effect on the birth rate/unwanted pregnancies. I don't think the elimination of copay will have a much of an effect on insurer's overall cost, but I guess we will have to see that too.
The copay for my birth control, which I also use to treat my hormonal migraines is $50/mo. Most of the other medicines I use have a $5 - $15 copay. Believe me, as a woman with a good income and good insurance plan I do not mind the government imposing this...I don't feel helpless. I feel like there is finally some equity between birth control and other medications.
All of these issues could be solved however if the US made birth control over the counter as it is in much of Europe. But, of course there are so many political issues that have nothing to do with the drug's safety at play there I don't think I will ever see that happen.
So in return for mandating that we must buy health insurance, it has been mandated that health insurance must provide free birth control. If there is a loser here, it's hard to see it as the health insurance industry (seem around here anyway to be one of the few growing businesses. Ha, that' doesn't exactly make me optimistic about the future either!).
If we are BUYING our health insurance policies, and the policies must cover birth control, then it isn't free, is it. Buying does not equal free. My health care policy covers the cost of my daughters thyroid medicine too. Is that free? Do you want to deny her that?
Yes, we are all losers because the right wouldn't even consider a public option, much less a single payer system, and the insurance companies continue to limit access to medical treatment, deny coverage/treatment, stand between you and your doctor, all while taking huge profits. I'm glad you finally see it that way.;) Too bad it's too late for you to demand your elected official support a single payer system that would eliminate all that. Well, maybe next time.
ApatheticNoMore
8-7-11, 4:28pm
All of these issues could be solved however if the US made birth control over the counter as it is in much of Europe.
+1000. Really, having to go to a doctor (or even Planned Parenthood) to get birth control has never made much sense.
Mainly because I see this as a very inexpensive, easy way of solving a much bigger, much more long term, and MUCH more expensive problems - abortions, unwanted births to people who will be collecting welfare and other social services over a long period of time, children in foster care, education costs, medical costs, housing costs, etc... etc... and on and on. And I didn't say I was agaisnt paying for certain social services for people who have children, I said I think we need a different way of handling the situation rather than just throwing money at it. That doesn't make the problems go away - actually makes them worse IMHO.
Contraception has been free here for at least the last ten years, if not more, and our rate of teenage pregnancy and abortion is still the highest in Western Europe. There's not always a clear cut cause and effect link. It's a social issue rather than a financial one.
But there's no doubt that a free contraception scheme will make birth control available to women who may not have been able to afford it previously, which is surely a positive thing! I don't really give a crap about private companies having to shell out for this, since healthcare should really be about PEOPLE not PROFIT!
All of these issues could be solved however if the US made birth control over the counter as it is in much of Europe.
+1000. Really, having to go to a doctor (or even Planned Parenthood) to get birth control has never made much sense.
It's interesting that you should mention that. I was recently in the Netherlands, where it is possible in some cases to buy the pill in a pharmacy without prescription. My German friend and I both thought that it was a bit odd. Presumably you'd want to seek advice from your doctor anyway? Getting your blood pressure checked before taking birth control and during, making sure you're on the most suitable form (considering conditions you suffer from eg migraines, heavy periods), etc. Not everyone is great at seeking out this type of information for themself.
Maxamillion
8-9-11, 6:32pm
since healthcare should really be about PEOPLE not PROFIT!
Amen.
iris lily
8-12-11, 12:30am
Now here's some fallout from those laws that pander to women: this man won't be covered under Medicaid for his breast cancer:
http://www.nerve.com/news/politics/man-with-breast-cancer-denied-medicaid-coverage-because-of-his-gender
The special law passed to cover women's health, making women a special class, did in fact make them special, so special that others can't get the same treatment.
How stupid is that.
Gooberment logic at its finest
jennipurrr
8-12-11, 4:55pm
It's interesting that you should mention that. I was recently in the Netherlands, where it is possible in some cases to buy the pill in a pharmacy without prescription. My German friend and I both thought that it was a bit odd. Presumably you'd want to seek advice from your doctor anyway? Getting your blood pressure checked before taking birth control and during, making sure you're on the most suitable form (considering conditions you suffer from eg migraines, heavy periods), etc. Not everyone is great at seeking out this type of information for themself.
I don't disagree that its in a person's best interest to go for a yearly exam, but the pill is a safe enough drug in itself to be dispensed over the counter. It meets FDA criteria for an over the counter drug. There are very few side effects from ingesting birth control hormones, especially if the OTC version were a Progestin only pill. They are easy to take and don't require medical supervision.
I find an equal medication currently in the US OTC market to be yeast infection treatment. It is over the counter, but it is definitely in a woman's best interest to go to the doctor the first time they have a yeast infection. The person could have an STD or other infection that truly needs medical treatment. But, there is no social issue with a 16 year old buying yeast infection cream. There are also pain relievers and allergy medications that are over the counter that have much more likely severe and common side effects than the pill. Its really a political issue.
Now here's some fallout from those laws that pander to women: this man won't be covered under Medicaid for his breast cancer:
http://www.nerve.com/news/politics/man-with-breast-cancer-denied-medicaid-coverage-because-of-his-gender
The special law passed to cover women's health, making women a special class, did in fact make them special, so special that others can't get the same treatment.
How stupid is that.
Gooberment logic at its finest
A good argument FOR universal healthcare - equal and accessable for all and no pandering based on gender, age, disease, or financial situation.
A good argument FOR universal healthcare - equal and accessable for all and no pandering based on gender, age, disease, or financial situation.
Of course, it could just as easily be an example of the type of medical care we'd get under a universal plan.
Of course, it could just as easily be an example of the type of medical care we'd get under a universal plan.
At least we'd GET medical care :-)! Some/many don't have even that option.
At least we'd GET medical care :-)! Some/many don't have even that option.
Well, the story you were referring to is about a man who doesn't get medical care under a government system. How will giving the government more control help that?
This was the best explanation I could find of the issue:
The Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act, a federal law enacted in 2000, uses Medicaid funds to cover treatment for breast cancer or cervical cancer patients who otherwise wouldn't qualify for the state and federally funded health insurance program for the poor and disabled.
But federal guidelines for the breast and cervical treatment program say women must be diagnosed through "early detection" programs funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a federal agency.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services neither recommends nor covers routine breast cancer screening for men, meaning they "may not be considered screened" under the treatment coverage program, according to its guidelines. In South Carolina, such screening is offered to uninsured women between the ages of 47 and 64 who meet certain income guidelines.
Actually it looks like the ACLU is using anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act to challenge it.
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/aug/09/graham-scott-aclu-on-cancer-patients-side/
I wonder if someone could answer a question I have about the US healthcare system.
My daughter, who is 14, has just been diagnosed with a condition which is incurable, although not life threatening. She has started a course of medication which should bring it under control and although the range of drugs required should reduce after the first couple of months, she will probably need to remain on some of them for life.
Here that isn't a concern, because healthcare is free at the point of delivery and until she is 18 (or she leaves full time education) there are no prescription charges. After that the prescription charges are modest and all hospital and GP visits are free at the point of delivery for everyone.
If we lived in the US then I imagine that a child of 14 would normally be covered by her parents' health insurance, and presumably most people in my position would get that through their employer. What would happen to her if I changed jobs, or lost my job and either had no job or was obliged to change to a different insurer? One day she will be employed and I will be retired, so a different insurer would certainly be involved sooner or later, and I would guess they would refuse cover because she would have a pre-existing condition. How do people deal with that kind of situation in the US?
Kevin
...Actually it looks like the ACLU is using anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act to challenge it.
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/aug/09/graham-scott-aclu-on-cancer-patients-side/
So the Gooberment's (Obamacare) Act provides ammo to attack the Gooberment's (BCCPTA) Act. Our tax dollars at work, doncha love it. And I'll bet that happens more often than we know.
Seriously creaker, thanks for poking around to find the mechanics of why the guy was denied Medicaid. I figured there was some sort of technicality involved but didn't have the patience to seek it out.
Well, the story you were referring to is about a man who doesn't get medical care under a government system. How will giving the government more control help that?
Never said medical insurance/care under a govmint system was any better than private insurance/care :-)! What I was trying to say (badly) was that at least he had the opportunity to go to a doctor and find out what was wrong with him. Many uninsured don't even have that option - or the option to get something simple, like an infection from a cut finger or a spider bite, treated which may turn from simple to life threatening rapidly. Why he wasn't able to actually get care for his cancer is beyond me. That should never happen in any type of system - public or private but it is typical of both unfortunately.
Mangano's Gold
8-15-11, 2:58pm
I wonder if someone could answer a question I have about the US healthcare system.
My daughter, who is 14, has just been diagnosed with a condition which is incurable, although not life threatening. She has started a course of medication which should bring it under control and although the range of drugs required should reduce after the first couple of months, she will probably need to remain on some of them for life.
Here that isn't a concern, because healthcare is free at the point of delivery and until she is 18 (or she leaves full time education) there are no prescription charges. After that the prescription charges are modest and all hospital and GP visits are free at the point of delivery for everyone.
If we lived in the US then I imagine that a child of 14 would normally be covered by her parents' health insurance, and presumably most people in my position would get that through their employer. What would happen to her if I changed jobs, or lost my job and either had no job or was obliged to change to a different insurer? One day she will be employed and I will be retired, so a different insurer would certainly be involved sooner or later, and I would guess they would refuse cover because she would have a pre-existing condition. How do people deal with that kind of situation in the US?
Kevin
Kevin, in the US, both you and your daughter would likely bounce around from insurance company to insurance company as your employment and financial situation changed. This is common, particularly since folks' average tenure at an employer is decreasing.
Here's a shortened version of what would happen if you changed jobs: Ideally your new employer would provide insurance, and you would have a relatively pain-free switch. These employer plans do no discrimianate against pre-existing conditions provided you've recently had insurance (there are details but this post could get long, it is called "creditable coverage" in our lingo).
If your new employer does not offer health insurance (quite common) then you would have to get it on your own. You could tag along on your old employer's policy for 18 months, but you would bear the full cost, and you would pay with after-tax dollars. The cost for a family plan averages over $1,000 per month, often much more. With a pre-exisiting condition, this would likely be a cheaper option than going into the shark-infested private "Individual market".
If you fell into economic despair, your daughter would likely be covered. The healthcare safety net for children is much stronger than for adults, though not at the level of the old coutrnies.
When your daughter is no longer a child, she will have to get coverage like anyone else. If she has maintained coverage over the years (the "creditable coverage" again), she wouldn't have a problem with pre-existing conditions (on employer plans). If she had a break in coverage, for whatver reason, her conditions would be "pre-existing" and it would complicate things, and could get expensive. Ditto if she wanted to be self-employed, or her employer didn't offer coverage.
It is convoluted. It will be much much better for us Americans if the changes slated for 2014 come to fruition.
Here's a shortened version of what would happen if you changed jobs: Ideally your new employer would provide insurance, and you would have a relatively pain-free switch. These employer plans do no discrimianate against pre-existing conditions provided you've recently had insurance (there are details but this post could get long, it is called "creditable coverage" in our lingo).
Thanks MG, that is a very useful summary. The only experience I have of 'health' insurance is veterinary cover for one of my dogs who came to us with a pre-existing condition, which is specifically excluded from the policy. I couldn't really believe that insurance companies would treat people in the same way, so it's good to hear about creditable coverage.
Kevin
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.