a day that will live in infamy

[Beerina]

Insurance companies have to provide a product free of charge when it was not free of charge before. Costs increase.

The libertarian in me disdains people forcing other people to do things at the point of a gun.

But it takes two to tango, and I'd just as soon have a magic robot appear and ask the woman if she wants a condom, and, if so, charge it immediately to the dude.









Then the robot would hang one of those new, printed TV screens on the wall with this:

 

[Spindrift]

Insurance companies have to provide a product free of charge when it was not free of charge before. Costs increase.

Insurance companies don't have to pay for pre-natal care, delivery and infant care. Costs decrease.

 

[Dessi]

I knew a guy who caught a bad case of infamy, the sores didn't go away for a month!

 

[Dessi]

And that idiot would be the one who drafted the bill. There's no reason to mandate coverage for birth control at all, let alone to mandate it without a copay.

Why? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just wondering how you rationalize your view.

As near as I can tell, women have been getting prescriptions for birth control for decades, it's definitely a bona fide medical expense. Its not exactly clear why its not worth insuring. And I think waiving copays is intended to make it more accessible to financially disadvantaged people, reducing unwanted pregnancies, I don't think that's necessarily objectionable.

Meanwhile, costs will increase and politicians (and other idiots) will use it as more reason to overhaul health care (again) or do away with the insurance system altogether.

Evidence?

 

[eeyore1954]

You're right. If you hate women and think that not allowing them control over reproduction is a good way to control and oppress them then there really is no reason to mandate it without a copay.

To me this statement is almost as far fetched as the politicians.
Not as offensive as equating mandating free birth control with thousands being murdered on 9/11.

You do not have to hate women and want to control and oppress them to think that their is nothing wrong with people (men and women) being responsible to provide for their own birth control.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Insurance companies don't have to pay for pre-natal care, delivery and infant care. Costs decrease.

Somehow I'm skeptical that the number of pregnancies prevented by this new rule will offset the costs incurred by the insurance company. I don't know what the average copay was for a month's supply of BC, but I imagine it wasn't oppressive. So there was already a number of women on it. Is there an estimate of the number of women who were not on BC only because the copay? These are the only women who will not experience a pregancy because of the new law.

If that number is large enough, sure it'll offset the costs of the care you mentioned. But I doubt it is.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Why? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just wondering how you rationalize your view.

I'm not a fan of coercion. If a woman doesn't care to have BC covered in her plan, she shouldn't be compelled to have a plan that covers it.

As near as I can tell, women have been getting prescriptions for birth control for decades, it's definitely a bona fide medical expense. Its not exactly clear why its not worth insuring.

I didn't say it wasn't worth insuring.

And I think waiving copays is intended to make it more accessible to financially disadvantaged people, reducing unwanted pregnancies, I don't think that's necessarily objectionable.


Evidence?

Both of these are covered in previous posts.

 

[eeyore1954]

Insurance companies don't have to pay for pre-natal care, delivery and infant care. Costs decrease.

I think if this was really true it would already be done. Cost to society is a different matter.

 

[cwalner]

Oddly enough, I partially agree with Grizzly on this. I do not understand the extra step of removing the copay from the pill.

I understand why the AHCA would have the requirement to cover them (and strongly support that), but shouldn't they be subject to the same copay as any other prescription?

for example, under my plan, I pay $30 for name brand and $10 for one month of any prescrpition (reduced to $20/$5 if I buy three months at a time through the online pharmacy)

Why is such a payment plan considered acceptable for my insulin, statins and diuretics, but too onerous for Birth Control Pills?

I guess, my issue is I don't like the idea that this still makes BCP a special case for drug coverage. It has just moved from the special case being that it could be omitted from coverage completely to where it has to be fully covered.

I think the best course is to make it treated exactly the same as any other drug a person might take to provide them with better health.

 

[Border Reiver]

Being male and Canadian this is confusing to me. Our UHC generally doesn't cover prescriptions, so the health insurance that many of us have up here covers prescriptions and medical devices.

The pill is covered up here by the major insurers because it is only available by prescription and the insurers don't differentiate prescribed medications based on what they do, if only because some women are prescribed the pill for reasons other than birth control.

 

[Rolfe]

The contraceptive pill is completely free on the NHS. It's not even subject to a prescription charge in the parts of Britain which still have prescription charges (yes, England, I'm looking at you....)

Rolfe.

 

[casebro]

It takes one man and one woman to make a baby- there is only one birth to 'control'.

Lemmee see the logic: Pills are taken by women, and are now free. Condoms are worn by men, and he has to pay for them. Yet the same birth gets prevented. Why the failure to see the sexism?

And so far as the insurors saving money by preventing the expenses incurred by a pregnancy, how about the added savings incurred by preventing social diseases?


Hmm, prospective legal challenge here?: Birth control is the woman's job now? Therefor, toss all the paternity suits?

 

[Stellafane]

Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it infamy!

Infamy-ly way? I thought birth control was designed to prevent that.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You guys have to stop teasing me, or I'm sic'ing the 7th Fleet on you.

 

[maxpower1227]

It takes one man and one woman to make a baby- there is only one birth to 'control'.

Lemmee see the logic: Pills are taken by women, and are now free. Condoms are worn by men, and he has to pay for them. Yet the same birth gets prevented. Why the failure to see the sexism?

And so far as the insurors saving money by preventing the expenses incurred by a pregnancy, how about the added savings incurred by preventing social diseases?


Hmm, prospective legal challenge here?: Birth control is the woman's job now? Therefor, toss all the paternity suits?

You do know that BC does more than preventing pregnancy, right? I thought we went over all of this when that misogynistic pig Limbaugh made a public display of his ignorance on this topic.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

High-fives all around for wilfull obtuseness. It's the taxation that's coercion.

 

[RandFan]

Insurance companies have to provide a product free of charge when it was not free of charge before. Costs increase.

Turns out that birth control is much cheaper than pregnancies and associated complications.

 

[Border Reiver]

High-fives all around for wilfull obtuseness. It's the taxation that's coercion.

Taxes are the user fees for living in society.

 

[Kestrel]

What most people don't know is that covering contraception without copays was based on an Institute of Medicine report.

A new report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends that eight preventive health services for women be added to the services that health plans will cover at no cost to patients under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). The ACA requires plans to cover the services listed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) comprehensive list of preventive services. At the agency's request, an IOM committee identified critical gaps in preventive services for women as well as measures that will further ensure women's health and well-being.

 

[Travis]

Just how the hell do you get from being against a law requiring insurance companies to not only offer birth control coverage but to offer it without a copay, to hating women and wanting to control their bodies?

I am not in favor of prohibiting birth control at all. I never said I was. I never implied I was.

So where you got this hating women and wanting to control their bodies fantasy I don't know.

For whatever reason you seem to want poor women to be stuck with unwanted pregnancies. Hate is the only reason I can think of for someone wanting to wish that onto an entire segment of the population.

To me this statement is almost as far fetched as the politicians.
Not as offensive as equating mandating free birth control with thousands being murdered on 9/11.

You do not have to hate women and want to control and oppress them to think that their is nothing wrong with people (men and women) being responsible to provide for their own birth control.

So what reason, other than hate, would someone want to wish unwanted pregnancies onto poor women?

It takes one man and one woman to make a baby- there is only one birth to 'control'.

Lemmee see the logic: Pills are taken by women, and are now free. Condoms are worn by men, and he has to pay for them. Yet the same birth gets prevented. Why the failure to see the sexism?

And so far as the insurors saving money by preventing the expenses incurred by a pregnancy, how about the added savings incurred by preventing social diseases?


Hmm, prospective legal challenge here?: Birth control is the woman's job now? Therefor, toss all the paternity suits?

When men have to carry the baby to term in their body your idea of a legal challenge might be possible.