I’ve heard just about enough about this fight over the Obamacare mandate that all heath insurance must provide birth control without a co-pay. It’s even spreading into the personal finance world with Sandy’s article Stay Out of My Uterus. I need to address it because if I don’t my head is going to explode! If you don’t want to read a political post, stop right now and I’ll see you tomorrow.
The amount of misinformation I’m hearing about the topic is outrageous. You have senators making intellectually dishonest statements such as these:
“For millions of American women reading the news today was like stepping into a time machine and going back 50 years seeing the headlines and the photos of an all male panel in the House talking about a woman’s right to access birth control.” – Senator Patty Murray
“When will they get this simple non-debatable fact? The power to decide whether or not a women will use contraception lies with her. Not her boss. Not her employer.” – Senator Kirsten Gillibran
Women have access to birth control, and no one is trying to take that access away! A woman still has a legal right to birth control, no matter what her employer’s health insurance plan covers.
She can buy it at full price, or she can buy a different health insurance policy that covers it. Women had access to birth control before Obamacare, and they will continue to have access to birth control even if Obamacare were repealed in its entirety tomorrow. They would just have to pay for it the same way they pay for any other medical services.
To suggest a woman wouldn’t have access to birth control if her employer doesn’t offer a health insurance plan that gives free birth control without a copay is to suggest that women are incapable of getting healthcare without the government or insurance.
If a woman wants birth control but the health insurance through her job doesn’t provide it, then she should pay for it herself or find a new job with health insurance she likes better. You can substitute “birth control” for “erectile dysfunction pills” or “chronic pain medication” or “some other medication”. If you don’t like your insurance, get a new one.
Being a “Women’s Health Issue” Doesn’t Matter
Some people are going to argue, “Birth control is important for women’s health!!!! It has to be free!!!!!” You know what else is important for women’s health? Multivitamins. And a gym membership to stay in shape. And healthy food in the cabinets to eat a balanced diet.
Antibiotics are important when someone is sick. So is a cast on a broken leg and chemotherapy on cancer. Every single medicine or medical procedure available is important for women’s (and men’s) health. If they weren’t important then they wouldn’t be available. Why aren’t those medical services free too?
To pick out one individual medication and decide it must be free is an affront to anyone who needs medicine that is not birth control.
Access Does Not Mean Free
Women have access to contraception in this country. No one is trying to take away their right to take or obtain birth control.
What is being taken away is a business owner’s right provide as much or as little health care for its employees as possible, including any healthcare that the employer might see as a violation of their right to religious freedom.
When the federal government proposes a bill that would make it illegal for a woman to take birth control, I’ll be the first one to stand against it. That is an infringement on a woman’s individual liberty. At the same time, I would expect people to respect the religious liberties of people who don’t want to pay for a drug that goes against their religion.
If you want birth control and your employer chooses not to offer it through your health insurance then you should have a right to buy it yourself. That is the only way to ensure no one’s liberty is trampled upon.
Kevin McKee is an entrepreneur, IT guru, and personal finance leader. In addition to his writing, Kevin is the head of IT at Buildingstars, Co-Founder of Padmission, and organizer of Laravel STL. He is also the creator of www.contributetoopensource.com. When heâs not working, Kevin enjoys podcasting about movies and spending time with his wife and four children.
I agree, I don’t think the government should tell an insurance company what they have or don’t have to cover in the open market.
However, for government-run health insurance, e.g. medicare, this low income thing in Obamacare, etc. Definitely, you should be playing by the government’s rules and BC should be covered as it reduces long term costs.
Birth control is a gray area. The long term health benefits and savings are widely documented. The only argument against is religious which shouldn’t have any bearing on politics, yet it does and that’s stupid, but a whole other argument.
Shockingly, I actually agree with you on this one. I don’t think the government has a right to decide what I do with my body – make birth control available, let me access it, and if my insurance doesn’t cover it (it doesn’t) then I’ll pay for it myself. If there are women who can’t afford it, offer lower cost options through health departments and other agencies (this already exists).
While I think it would be wonderful if all insurance plans covered birth control, I’m not going to get upset if that doesn’t happen. Since no one is restricted from purchasing or using birth control (that I know of), I think there are much bigger issues for us to worry about.
I agree with Sandy, though I am mostly indifferent on the issue within the context that it is currently being played out in the media. This is nothing more than a dog and pony show for the dems and repubs and I haven’t the energy to even discuss it on my blog.
If women want BC then they generally know where to get it, Planned Parenthood being one option and local nonprofit clinics being another. Still in rural areas this may not be an option for many women.
You’re absolutely right. This entire political fight is a circus.
I thought our elected idiots were supposed to be addressing matters like jobs. After all is said and done, I think most health insurers will cover birth control for women because it’s cheaper to pay for the prevention of pregnancy than to pay for an abortion and paying for an abortion is cheaper than paying to cover the medical bills that occur with a pregnancy. With that said, if women wanted to take birth control, they can find it at a relatively affordable price. Now, let’s talk about how the United States is becoming less competitive globally.
Exactly, talk to me about how we plan to get more jobs over here. The social issues circus is tiring but most of all an effective tool at getting us distracted from the real issues.
Forgot to mention that the BIGGEST problem with this debate is perception.
Did you watch the hearings and see the religious “panel”? Those congresswomen who walked out were correct. There were no women on the panel and it created the perception that all of these religious men were trying to dictate woman’s health issues
If you want to get your point across in this day and age, you have to think of perception. Sending 20 men to talk about birth control to a hearing comprised half of women is just stupid and they looked like jackasses.
The perception of Obama including BC in all health insurance is that he’s trying to intrude on religious freedoms. What he’s trying to do is save money, but that’s not the perception.
Bottom line, make sure you are the one in control of the perception of what you are trying to do.
Hit the nail on the head. Thank you.
I agree with you on principle, and disagree on practicality.
Frankly, I think the world would be a much better place if birth control were dispensed like candy out of a coin-op vending machine on every street corner. We have a very serious problem with people having kids they otherwise should not have. In some respects, I see where making birth control rain like dollar bills after a Fed committee meeting would result in much better outcomes.
I also see where any amount “invested” in birth control would significantly reduce the amount of spending on social welfare to a degree that it would be revenue positive.
I find, generally, that the capacity to make intelligent decisions is inversely correlated with the number of children someone has past a certain “normal” threshold. Three kids? Whatever. Seven kids? Hmm… As parents are the most important role models for their kids, there’s a problem when those who have the most kids have no business being parents and those who have the least number of kids should probably have 10 more to even out the “pool.”
This is all from the perspective of a somewhat Catholic, too.
Health care needs not to be tied to an employer. This is, however, a function of the tax system. Additional wages are taxable – huge insurance benefits are not taxable. This explains, in many ways, why those who make enough to be comfortable generally appreciate additional benefits in lieu of pay.
“Frankly, I think the world would be a much better place if birth control were dispensed like candy out of a coin-op vending machine on every street corner. We have a very serious problem with people having kids they otherwise should not have. In some respects, I see where making birth control rain like dollar bills after a Fed committee meeting would result in much better outcomes.”
+
“Health care needs not to be tied to an employer. This is, however, a function of the tax system. Additional wages are taxable â huge insurance benefits are not taxable. This explains, in many ways, why those who make enough to be comfortable generally appreciate additional benefits in lieu of pay.”
****APPLAUSE***
***BOW****
I’m not the least bit concerned about practicality. I’m concerned about liberty.
If widespread free birth control is so important, then it should be done voluntarily in a private charity. If we allowed the government to trample on liberty for the sake of practicality, we’d be a complete socialist state.
“Health care needs not to be tied to an employer.”
OMG! I was just talking about this. I recently discovered I can’t take a Schedule C deduction for the healthcare premiums I pay under COBRA because the plan is owned by my former employer. Even though I’m paying 102% of the premiums. What flippin’ difference does it make?! I like how politicians carry on about how they want to help the small business owner and then they create tax policy that unfairly penalizes them for taking a risk.
By the way, I’m with you on making birth control as readily available as possible. I was ecstatic when I found out Plan B could be purchased over the counter. Hopefully, a bunch of celibate men won’t try to take that away from women.
I don’t need you to pay for it. I just need you to mind your business.
This mandate will reduce the number of unwanted kids especially among teenagers.
I don’t see anything in the constitution about reducing the number of unwanted kids.
Interesting topic. đ
I am originally from Canada. At the age of 19, I required birth control and was able to go to go to a local walk in clinic and get birth control for $12 for 3 months worth of pills (after a full exam, of course). They were discreet and when they called my house, they always asked for me and never left a message. I didn’t have to use my parent’s insurance card. They also had a huge bowl of colorful condoms on the counter and you could take however many you wanted.
When I moved to the US at the age of 25, I got health insurance though my work. Even though I had great insurance, it still cost me $35/pack for my pills. The contrast in my mind was huge! I could get pills WITH insurance for $35 in the US or in Canada I paid $4 WITHOUT insurance. No more free condoms in the United States either… bummer.
I honestly don’t know anything about the Obama plan regarding this subject. But, we have to remember that birth control is a touchy subject for young women who are sexually active and don’t have anywhere to go to get their birth control. Especially somewhere safe that their parents won’t know about. In my mind, making birth control a virtually free and easy to get resource will make sure that more teens and young women get into clinics, get exams, and get the birth control they need in order to be safe.
It’s interesting how different Canada and the US treat this subject…
Thanks for the opposing viewpoint. We can agree that birth control need not be free. I’m okay with a copay (which is a bit high if you ask me).
What I’m not okay with was the way in which the debate was highjacked by the religious right who pushed it into the territory of questioning women’s right to birth control at all. That’s what set me off.
It doesn’t matter if you’re left or right or centrist. Any talk about bloccking women’s access to reproductive care medication ticks me off. That’s all really.
JT nailed it. The people who will be using the government health insurance are the exact ones I do not want to be creating offspring. Regardless of my beliefs in the free market, I dont want the unemployed and financially irresponsible of the work to have anymore excuses to start having babies at 16.
Another major reason that no one has mentioned: a LOT of women are on the pill for other reasons. I went on the pill as a young teen because my body stopped having regular periods on it’s own, and Im not the only one by a long shot.
In principle, I agree with you. On the other hand, as a woman I feel insulted that a men-only group wants to decide on a women-only subject. And even though I’m religious myself, I can’t understand why the fundamentalists are so much against birth control⌠legally wed couples use these too, you know.
Well I don’t consider it a women-only subject, as there are plenty of men who will be paying insurance premiums to fund birth control, but I do agree that it would have been appropriate to ensure both women and men had a seat at the table.
I don’t agree — access to birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies. If the Catholic version is the only provider you have access to (you’re an orderly in a hospital, say, and it’s a job to you rather than something that’s aligned with your religious beliefs) then you should get birth control. Period. I get that Catholics don’t want to pay for it, but birth control is a hell of a lot cheaper than providing healthcare to poor women who didn’t want to get pregnant and now need all kinds of prenatal care.
But that orderly still has access to private health insurance, or access to paying full price for birth control. This isn’t a matter of what is cheaper; it’s a matter of people being free to do what they want.
If you want low income people to have birth control so bad then you are more than welcome to exercise you own individual liberty and buy it for them; don’t force me or anyone else to do it against their will.
Well I work out and eat right so I don’t want to pay for fat people’s blood pressure medication.
I don’t have that choice.
It’s not only fat people who have high blood pressure or similar conditions. I’m a good deal heavier than my brother-in-law, but he’s the one who has a family history of heart disease and needed a quadruple bypass. If you want a system where you pay for only yourself and no one pays for you, well and good, but insurance systems depend on pooled risk where we all pay for each other so that we can be covered ourselves.
That’s precisely my point!
I did not read it that way, but I’ll take whatever I can get. đ
As far as I know, blood pressure medication doesn’t infringe on anyone’s religious beliefs. But let’s pretend it did infringe on my beliefs, then I would want to have insurance that didn’t provide it for me or anyone else in my insurance pool, and insurance companies should have the right to provide a policy that doesn’t cover a certain drug if their customers don’t want it.
It’s not “birth control” that makes me upset. It could be any drug. It’s a matter of having the freedom to do what you want.
Yes, this has nothing to do with BC and everything to do with our constitutional rights. You can have your BC. Really! But why force any business’s owner to offer it to you or your sister or daughter? Would you like the government to force you, your daughter or sister to take it? Where does the control stop?
Yay Tom and Kevin for grasping the core of the issue here.
“Well I work out and eat right so I donât want to pay for fat peopleâs blood pressure medication.”
word! I don’t think BC should be FREE any more than anything else covered by health insurance is free… but it should be covered, just like anything else. at a minimum, it should be covered if you’re prescribed it for health reasons (like JH mentioned above). what I don’t get is all this “treating it differently.” it doesn’t seem to me like there’s really an argument for that other than a religious one, which doesn’t count.
I think a lot of folks are missing the point of the post.
Kevin’s saying that it should be up to the insurance company to determine what should or should not be covered. Not the government, and maybe not even their clients.
Insurance companies know how much birth control saves them and will do whatever saves/makes them the most money. If religious organizations don’t want to cover birth control, they must be prepared to pay higher premiums.
Anyone not clouded by antiquated religious beliefs knows that birth control is beneficial to society and saves us all money. It would be completely stupid of an insurance company to not cover it, but, again, it’s up to them.
Exactly. I don’t know how an insurance company would price a plan that covers birth control vs. a plan that doesn’t. If the real life implications of not providing birth control and therefore paying for more pregnancy related expenses ends up that a plan with birth control is $100 a month and without is $150 a month, then that’s fine. Or if the one without birth control saves money and ends up at $50 a month, that’s fine too.
The price at the end of the day is irrelevant. What’s important is allowing people to pick a policy that doesn’t infringe on their religious beliefs and having them pay a fair market price for that policy.
Insurance companies don’t have all that incentive to cut costs. As mandated by new laws, insurance companies have to pay out at least 80% of premium revenues as benefits.
Realistically, a bunch of pregnant women are a lot more profitable than women with birth control prescriptions. It is in the interest of health care companies (especially now) to keep costs as high as possible as the costs are passed on and their margins stay the same.
If I’m going to play full-on Devil’s Advocate, then government absolutely has a right to regulate health care. Health insurance was granted an exemption to anti-trust, monopoly laws and is therefore regulated by Congress, much like Major League Baseball.
Great post. Nailed it. No matter how much the left and the media they control want to spin things, this issue is about the religious liberty that we have in the 1st amendment. The only reason we are talking about it is because Obama’s healthcare fiasco (which most people don’t like) mandated that Catholic institutions do something against their beliefs. So everyone who’s saying this is about women and their rights is hijacking the issue for their own gain.
Philip,
No… the issue is not about religious freedom. The issue is about the government interfering in business, health insurance business. Religion shouldn’t even be in the conversation. The law isn’t making Catholic institutions do anything at all. The law is making health insurance companies cover all birth control.
Religion not in the conversation? It’s what started the conversation. You know, because of a little thing called the 1st amendment.
While I agree that there is a separate issue present here with regard to Government mandates, the fact is, Government has been mandating a lot for years. What they haven’t done is force a religion to do something that they oppose. This whole thing would not have blown up like it has if Christians hadn’t said, “no, we will not be forced to pay for something we object to.”
People of all faiths and beliefs should be worried when the government starts dictating what religious groups should do.
And they are being required to pay. They are the ones paying for the health insurance. What, it’s some separate transaction between the insurance company and the employee? No. The employer is the middle man, being forced to pay for this. They happen to be a religious group, which is precisely why this is a big issue.
“What they havenât done is force a religion to do something that they oppose. ”
That’s absolutely not true. Law enforcement officials have been subpoenaing Catholic church officials for years in these child molestation cases. Church officials tried to fight the subpoenas, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The Church tried to argue that “state review of confidential, pastoral counseling ⌠inherently entangles the state in the internal religious life of churches and intrudes into religious practice”.
Religious groups aren’t required to do anything at this point. They don’t have to offer any health insurance, it’s not mandated yet. They don’t have to pay anything.
“yet”
It takes effect in Feb 2013. I don’t understand how stating that it isn’t in effect yet takes away from the fact that this issue is about them being required to pay? They will be buying the health insurance that is providing the service that is against their religion. Simple.
Whether you like it or not, our constitution uses the word “religion”. No amount of belittling on your part will take that away, tom.
Ron Paul said it best…
“The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes.”
It’s being debated at the Supreme Court level. So yet is a valid assertion.
And your quote from Ron Paul proves my point…
“The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes.”
This is not a religious argument. Your morals may be based on religion, but it has nothing to do with religious freedoms. It’s between the government and business. If a religious organization thinks that health insurance is “immoral” then fine, there is no mandate, YET, that says you have to. The health insurance mandate law PLUS the BC requirement is definitely a violation of religious freedom, but these are not mandated together YET. The BC requirement alone, is a volition of business freedom.
I’m not belittling anything. I’m telling you that this is business, not religion.
If I was belittling, I would say that this is, by far, the dumbest things for Christians to get all fired up about, when there are far bigger issues they should be taking care of, especially internally, especially in the wake of these molestation cases. I’m not saying that. I’m saying, until there are religious violations, of which there are none with this YET, keep religion out of it. It’s business.
I think it’s a scary thing to let employers decide what they will or will not cover under employee paid insurance. I don’t believe that because I am an ICU nurse at a catholic hospital I should have to jump through hoops to get birth control (which is prescribed for reasons other than pregnancy prevention) covered by my overpriced insurance. I think that it is a prescribed drug by my doctor, and therefore should be covered at the same percentage as say….erectile dysfunction drugs? Those are covered well by all insurances, while my birth control is not covered at ALL without extra paperwork that tells my employer exactly why it’s needed-which is a violation of my privacy. What’s next? An employer who happens to be a Jehovah’s witness that can decide to not cover those life saving blood transfusions? An employer that decides not to cover any anti-viral medications to people with HIV/AIDS, unless they can prove and disclose exactly HOW they got it????
Our founding fathers would disagree. It’s a beautiful thing that private employers and individuals get to make their own decisions. I love freedom. It’s what makes the U.S. great. If you want government mandates and state control, there are plenty of other countries that will oblige. Their citizens are sheep. We are free! My assignment for you this weekend (and I’m not kidding at all): go read the Constitution.
I think it is both about religious freedom and economic freedom. You shouldn’t be forcing insurance companies to cover something they don’t want to cover, and we shouldn’t be forcing individuals to fund something against their religion.
I was really hoping to read this post and completely disagree with it, but for the most part I agree. However I do think its wrong to gloss over “pay full price” or “find a new job that with better insurance”. I don’t think it needs to be pointed out how difficult either of these can be for many people in the country. Especially for lower income or less skilled/educated workers, paying full price, or finding a new job may not be totally realistic options.
There are also plenty of options for low income people to obtain birth control via private charity and other social services.
But the bottom line is that it birth control is not an inalienable right. Whether it is easy or difficult to obtain is irrelevant; the issue here is the freedom to make our own choices (both from a company perspective and from a consumer perspective)
I think the government needs to get out of our lives and continue doing what it does best… NOTHING.
AMEN brotha!
Oh please. If the government shut down for more than a week this country would be howling at the loss of services. Not saying this applies directly to Kevin or David, but a very interesting article in the NY Times last week analyzed how those areas of the country that most despise government services are precisely the ones making the most use of them. Case in point: an individual earning about $40K a year who claims “he doesn’t need any help from the government,” while he claims the Earned Income Credit and has signed up for federally funded school meals for his kids.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?_r=1
I agree. They’re trying to make this into a Roe v Wade issue of controlling women, but it’s not. My insurance at my last job didn’t cover “family planning,” (although I believe it did cover the pill if it was for medical reasons like PCOS etc) so you know what I did? I paid a whopping nine bucks a month for it retail. (Funny side note, under my current insurance, I pay the first $10 of generics, so I would STILL be paying the full price!) A friend of mine just didn’t like going to the doctor, so she went to a clinic. They have condom coupons in the newspaper. It’s not like you don’t have access to contraceptives if your insurance doesn’t cover it.
Personally, I think it’s beneficial to have Birth Control (BC) be free, simply due to overpopulation and the high costs of delivering a baby. By giving away BC, we help to “Bend the Cost Curve” even slightly.
That said, the onlything I would like to point out is that this statement is misleading and wrong: “At the same time, I would expect people to respect the religious liberties of people who donât want to pay for a drug that goes against their religion.”
It would have been absolutely correct in President Obama’s original proposal for BC coverage, but due to public pressure on this issue, he made a compromise that would only require the insurers, not the church or religious dissenters, to pay for BC.
Although small, it was a important change – that does not force the clergy / their staff to give out/directly pay for BC.
I like in Washington, DC, and work in politics, and these types of issues are always too “hot” and a place marker for people to complain that everything is wrong with the country. Instead of complaining, we should be happy that the president is actually able to recognize when he’s made a mistake, admit it, and make changes to make a proposal more appealing. One would think this is normal, and it may have been in the past, but it certainly isn’t today.
P.S. The more posts on this issue, the more Dems win, so keep up the hard work re-electing Obama, who I’m supporting đ
I agree with you that we can go out and buy birth control whenever or however we want without health insurance. I don’t necessarily think that birth control should be handed out to women for free from their health insurance companies, but I think that Obama pushing this issue through is bringing a lot of debate to this topic that is normally so taboo.
I also think that my employer should even out the cost of its single female employees being on birth control and share that cost with the single male employees or some sort of other system because you know what? It is damn expensive and I firmly believe that it is in my employer’s best interest for me to be on birth control. It reduces the likelihood of me getting pregnant to pretty much zero, makes me less moody, reduces my migraines so I take fewer sick days, etc.I am surrounded by men at work who don’t have this cost and spend $0 on healthcare per year beyond the premiums. How is that fair? You might say that men could go and spend money on erectile dysfunction medication, but I strongly believe that the various side effects of birth control pills help to level the playing field.
As a professional woman in a male-dominated field, I and my female coworkers are at an incredible disadvantage. In my field, women tend to negotiate salaries far less than men do, though skill-wise, we could otherwise be paid similarly, but the difference that will never go away between the two genders is that women are the ones that have to carry the babies for nine months, give birth, and recover from that process. Men will never have to go through that unless some biology researcher comes up with something crazy đ
So I’m sorry, but you can’t compare multivitamins, a gym membership, or healthy food in the cabinets to birth control. Birth control isn’t just for women’s health – it is for their careers and to level the playing field. By forcing health insurance companies to cover birth control at 100%, Obama is making an unprecedented step in the realm of women’s career lives, which I would compare to women being able to vote.
I’m not going to argue against the benefits of birth control. The point is that the federal government doesn’t have the authority in the constitution to force health insurance companies to provide something they don’t want to provide, and the federal government also doesn’t have authority in the constitution to force me to pay for something that goes against my religious beliefs.
Again, this is not an argument about practicality; it’s about freedom and government sticking its nose in places it shouldn’t.
My wife and I really want to have kids but we just can’t seem to!
Birth control – great!
Having the gov’t pay for it with tax dollars/mandate it with ObamaCare – Crap!
Can’t pay for it yourself cause your too broke? Also crap, use a condom then, it costs what like 40 cents
Ok for insurance coverage of birth control medication – at the same time approve ERD medication for men!
I’m seeing your argument, but all that’s coming across is PRIVILEGE PRIVILEGE PRIVILEGE PRIVILEGE. Yep, totally makes sense for men to shout about what women need.
But seriously, though: This is a massively privileged argument that doesn’t take into account the reality of the circumstances of anyone other than the author.
“If you donât like your insurance, get a new one.”
Sure, just hop on down to your local budget insurance store and pick up some insurance. Because non-employer-provided insurance is just so absurdly affordable to the people who need it most.
Also, this is asinine:
“Some people are going to argue, âBirth control is important for womenâs health!!!! It has to be free!!!!!â You know what else is important for womenâs health? Multivitamins. And a gym membership to stay in shape. And healthy food in the cabinets to eat a balanced diet.”
Why? Because every single thing you list there is something that also applies to men. Birth control* is something that doesn’t directly apply to men in any way (and as such, it’s easy to see why this argument is one made from privilege).
* Guess what: the birth control availability arguments coming from women have very little to do with sex (or “consequence-free sex”, specifically, as many are wont to claim), except that it is one thing that birth control helps with.
Why does it matter that birth control only applies to women? Does that mean anything else that only applies to women should be free too? Ovarian cancer treatment should be free? Pap smears should be free?
Why does it matter if it applies to only women? Are women more important than men? It’s not like I’m suggesting medicine or treatment that only applies to men’s health should be free, so why are you suggesting that for women?
Man did you ever miss that point. No, I don’t think that random things that aren’t medication should just arbitrarily be free.
“Why does it matter if it applies to only women? Are women more important than men? Itâs not like Iâm suggesting medicine or treatment that only applies to menâs health should be free, so why are you suggesting that for women?”
hahahaha no, women are not “more important than men”. I never so much as implied that. Acting like there’s any danger at all to men in this world because of this is just emphatically ignorant.
I mean, you… you *do* recognize that “covered” does not mean “free”, don’t you? In case you don’t understand that, here I am, right now, telling you: “covered” does not mean “free”.
Unfortunately you don’t even understand the mandate. It forces insurance companies to cover birth control without a copay. Covered without a copay means free.
http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2012/03/no-copay-for-the-pill
So if you think the pill should be covered without a copay, then why not medication for high blood pressure or diabetes or any other medication a man or woman might need?
Gosh, OK. I really didn’t know you hadn’t read, like, a single thing on all of this, but:
Contraception is preventive care. Lots of preventive care is already covered. You can stop with the ludicrous assertions that contraception is somehow arbitrary.
one last thing:
The stance you’re taking, where it’s a discussion of “free contraception” vs. “cheap contraception” is utterly disingenuous. The actual discussion that is actually being had by actual people is one of “covered contraception, possibly free” vs. “extremely expensive contraception that is not covered at all” That is what you’ll find, I think, if you inspect reality a little more closely.
And you are being disingenuous. Generic birth control costs about $9 a month at Walmart, Target, and Kroger. You can’t get much cheaper than $9 a month until it’s free.
http://health.costhelper.com/birth-control-pills.html
And you missed the entire point anyway. There is no authority in the constitution for the federal government to mandate what health insurance should cover and how much it should cost to the end consumer. Thanks for trying though.
Hahaha, I forgot you both wrote the original constitution and also are currently a supreme court justice.
Also, your three-and-a-half-year-old, based-on-nothing-real link doesn’t prove anything. I can also put up a website and say that brand new cars cost $0.50 each and that banks actually pay YOU to buy houses, but that doesn’t make it true. Also, what is “$9/month” at Walmart is not necessarily what a given woman needs. Sorry you don’t know the first thing about contraception.
Since you don’t believe that website, how about the generic drug list for those stores including sections for women’s health, providing a variety of different generic birth control options.
The fact is that every woman in this country already has access to birth control at very reasonable prices. You can continue to put your hands over your ears and say it’s not true, but you’re only fooling yourself.
Target = $9 / month or $24 / 3 months
http://sites.target.com/site/en/spot/page.jsp?title=pharmacy_generic_drugs_condition
Walmart = $4 or $9 / month or $10 or $30 / 3 months
http://i.walmart.com/i/if/hmp/fusion/genericdruglist.pdf
Kroger = $9 / month or $24 / 3 months
http://www.kroger.com/generic/Pages/womens_health.aspx
Yes, I see some lists that each include 1-3 different contraceptive drugs. Available at places that not every woman has access to (which you inexplicably seem to think isn’t the case).
I’ve already proven that many women have access to generic birth control at affordable prices. So would you agree that the mandate should not apply to any woman who could use the generic program?
That would reduce the costs of the program substantially while still providing access to birth control for all women.
You… haven’t proven anything. You’ve proven that some retailers have prescription programs that sell generics of a few different kinds of contraception, and that’s somehow supposed to apply to all women (and makes them pay full cost for it, in a world where other preventive care is completely free).
I didn’t realize $9 a month is a prohibitive cost to you. I hope you have a chance to read through some of the personal finance tips on my site; it sounds like you could use a little extra money.
http://174.37.190.189/~thousand/category/blog/personalfinancetips/
Yeah, the people in dire poverty in the US are going to get a lot out of “writing off their charitable donations” and getting some “personal finance apps”.
Again: privilege. You have So Much Privilege.
Those topics will probably help those in “dire poverty” about as much as they are going to benefit from EMPLOYER BASED health insurance.
I’m done with this conversation, but I do hope you’ll stick around. If you read enough of my writing, you might actually learn something.
And for the last time: yes, a couple of kinds of contraception only cost $9/month. That is only a small percentage of the number of types of contraception. So, you know, do your research next time, and you’ll come off as less ignorant.
You’ve done such a good job of making me want to stick around.
Amen brutha! Fact is that BC pills are used for 2 purposes…… birth control and as medication. If you need it for birth control then buy it yourself. No one should have to pay for anyones sexual activities with the exception of legal prostitutes and their johns of course. If it is prescribed as medication, then you should have a co pay just like any other medication. I’ve been to the doctors plenty of times for different issues (high blood pressure, bronchitis, etc.) never have I gotten any medication for free. I always either had to pay for it outright or at least a co pay. Also, Schnei, You are making about as much sense as an elevator in an outhouse. No matter what proof is placed before you, you just refuse to look at it. I swear, liberals should change their party mascot from the jackass to the ostrich seeing how they constantly keep their head in the sand. completely oblivious!