From a cost/benefit point of view, there's no doubt that insurance-covered birth control is by far the best choice. Young women are the ones who need it the most - and the most likely to be unable to afford it.

Having said that, I don't know why the author of this article thought it was necessary to consult a religious official for their opinion on the subject. This is a policy issue. As long as churches do not pay taxes, I don't think they have a legitimate voice in the development of public policy.

It will benefit men and society as a whole as well - let's get over the myth that all children are somehow virgin births!

In response to the Physicist--I am a young women who just recently began working at a Catholic based organization. Unfortunately due to their religious founding they refuse to cover birth control in their health plan or let you use money from your very own flexible spending account to pay for them. (Even though not everyone who works there is Catholic or shares the same views...)

While it seems unnecessary to you to ask the opinion of a religious official their thoughts, those same thoughts have profound (and very expensive) impacts on myself and others like me. That being said I obviously agree with everything else you said, particularly on young women being the ones who need it the most and can afford it the least!

GardenBug,

Perhaps my point was not as clear as I thought it was.

I don't mean to imply that what religious officials think doesn't have an impact on us. To the contrary, it often has far too much impact on private lives. And public policy.

I'd like to see us pursue more of a "No Representation Without Taxation" course when it comes to the infusion of theology into policy. And that includes workplace policy.

I'm sorry that your bc isn't covered. You know what my thoughts are on that subject. Please be very careful.

For the the sake of this discussion - and any other where cost is an issue - it is extremely important to understand that nothing is free. Birth control pills are NOT free; they have a cost.

Like abortion, taking the pill is an issue of choice. Given the number of abortions and unwanted children, it seems quite clear that taking the pill is a GOOD choice. Yes, there are unwanted children; many of them, and many are - GASP! - white. Anyone who says otherwise is flatly lying.

The cost of pills seems quite high these days, moreso considering the fact that the strength of dose has declined. Nonetheless, from a pure cost-benefit perspective, the wider the availability of the pill, the better for taxpayers. From a social point of view, it puts choice where it belongs: In a woman's hands. From a religious point of view. Who cares? They don't pay taxes, and many have devoted their ministries to the suppression of women. Atsa you, Pope Benny et al., the followers of Joe Smith, and a number of others.

(This is a great opportunity to point out that birth control pills are not generally effective when the user is taking antibiotics. Check with your doctor. I was shocked how many women do not know this.)

Neither Pro-Choice nor the people who take the silly Pro-Life label like abortion. Making the pill widely available and at a low cost is just plain GOOD sense.

Given that abortion coverage is banned defacto from most insurance plans due to the compromises made by Obama's health plan, I think mandatory funding of birth control is an absolute must.

Otherwise, the whole mantra of "pro-life" falls apart, because it then looks like the "pro-life" position is more "enslave women with biology."

Should health plans offer free birth control ....Of course.... And of course the conservative nut jobs who are the equivalent of the American Taliban will be against it.

Here's a thought: the more health insurance companies are required to cover, the more insurance is going to cost. Never mind the sexual morality aspect. If I'm post-menopausal, why shouldn't I have the choice to purchase a plan that does NOT cover either birth control, abortion, or pregnancy, since obviously I will never again need such services? It's like making me pay for homeowner's insurance that covers swimming pool accidents when I don't have a pool. Remember, there's no public option. Why shouldn't you be able to just get basic coverage? I had to pay for my own contraceptives so now I have to pay for yours?!? Here's a thought: split the cost with your boyfriend. Or just go to the local public health clinic which already makes it available at little or no cost.

OomYaaqub: Here's a thought: no one is saying that health insurance companies can't make an option that doesn't include birth control. People are saying that birth control should be made available at affordable costs. Here's another thought: married women use birth control also. Here's another thought: birth control is used for reasons other than just birth control by many women. Here's another thought: Planned Parenthood and other health clinics that provide birth control on a sliding fee schedule in a way that if you make more than poverty levels, you still pay a fairly good amount for birth control even there. For some women they are in the middle - too much to qualify for low cost or free birth control, but not enough to pay for the full price.

OomYaaqub: A pre-menopausal woman also has a small chance of heart attack, osteoporosis, high blood pressure, breaking a hip, so why should she have to pay insurance for those things? Neither of you have a prostate, why not make a special plan that won't offer that as a choice?

Get a grip. Paying for birth control benefits all of us. Fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer costs for pregnancies and deliveries. And those planned pregnancies are more often by women and their partners who have planned to be healthy, and have healthier babies.

The whole idea of ALL insurance is to spread the risk and the cost over the broadest possible group of participants.

But that's just the point, Honey. Different people have different needs, so there should be a wide range of choices. Obamacare is taking that away, not that many states didn't do that long ago anyway. Personally I would prefer to just buy what used to be called major medical; you paid for your doctor visits out of pocket but you had coverage in the event you needed hospitalization or some other very expensive condition such as cancer. That used to be ALL people had, and then a funny thing happened. Once doctor visits were covered, they soared in price. I remember paying just $20 a visit as recently as the 1980s, and I don't mean my copayment. That was the ACTUAL cost. (I was in college and had no insurance of any kind at the time, so I KNOW this was what it cost. And even as a poor student, I could afford that.) Then all of a sudden a doctor visit was $100-$200. This is what happens, you see. It's as if you could go to the supermarket and fill the cart with anything you wanted including T-bone steak but only pay a "$25 copay". How much would the cost of food soar? Think about it.

I agree that every young, fertile, sexually active couple needs birth control, but why do they need the pill (the T-bone steak of birth control) rather than barrier methods (the equivalent of hamburger)? Barrier methods are actually a lot safer anyway. Also, why would a woman have to shoulder the entire cost? What about her husband or boyfriend?

Then of course there's Big Pharma, which Obamacare does nothing to control. Why should the pill, originally invented in 1960, cost so much anyway? It should cost about as much as an aspirin by now.

Birth control may benefit us all, but county or city public health departments are the best way to pay for them. Think of how much cheaper pharaceuticals cost in Canada, where there are no private health insurance companies at all. Anyway, what I'm really talking about isn't birth control per se, it's about piling on mandatory this and mandatory that, seemingly with no limit.

OomYaaqub:

You're just not getting it. But in reading your numerous other postings, you have another agenda. We'll have to disagree.

The short answer is Yes, they should cover the cost.

What do you mean I'm not getting it? You're assuming that anyone who opposes mandatory coverage must be against birth control itself. Either that or you think our private health insurance system is the only possible way to go. But it is possible to be in favor of all kinds of things WITHOUT being in favor a particular method of paying for it.

Saying "you're not getting it" is really saying, "I don't have an answer but I'm sure I'm right." It's like saying, "I'm smart and you're stupid, so I don't really have to justify my opinion to the likes of you."

my father is retired army, so I had the benefit of being on tricare until I graduated college, and I LOVED the copay for my pill through them. I now pay almost triple what I did for the exact same generic form of the pill--how I miss tricare!! :)

How about we who are pro-close your legs? If you don't want a kid then close your legs.

How about we who are pro-close your legs? If you don't want a kid then close your legs.

That narrow way of thinking doesn't work in the real world.

That's about as practical as saying, if you want to lose weight, don't eat food. Or don't drink water. Can you please join the 21st century?

Jerry, it takes two to tango. I think the "pro-close your legs" groups should also be "pro-keep your pants zipped."

T.....couldn't have said it better......

Oh, HELL YEAH!!!

I second that to the power of a bajillion.

"How about we who are pro-close your legs? If you don't want a kid then close your legs."

Wow, I bet you're a fun date.

How about those of us who are married and want to limit the size of our families? The pill is used by more than just single folks. We should only have sex when we want a kid? When you're done having kids that's it - celibacy for life?

Why is it a bunch of men who don't even like women are trying to make their medical decisions for them. "As the late Earl Butz would say, "if you don't play the game you don't make the rules".

Jerry,

Hows your sex-less marriage going?

$77 a month to the insurance is better than a $20k+ bill for delivering a baby, then the additional expenses to the insurance provider AFTER the baby is born.

I don't understand why it is unrealistic to ask people to wait to have sex, but it is realistic to ask women to take a chemical pill or insert a piece of metal into her uterus. Or to be like hey, I know, lets wrap your penis with a piece of plastic. BRILLIANT! Why is saying no any more ridiculous than these options?

Also, if you are married and don't want to have kids there are other options outside of birth control. A woman is physically only able to conceive during a very limited window, if you track your fertility then you simply don't have sex during those days. At most you are looking at 5-7 days of no sex. Which I guess would be unrealistic for a married couple right? Silly me.

And as for health concerns. Does any one find it slightly odd that the first generation of women who were on birth control, a majority of them for a large portion of lives, had such horrendous reactions to HRT? Which many were only on for a few years, and is made up of the exact same "hormones" as the pill?

kfish,

So you have issues with birth control being covered by health insurance, but Viagra, Cialis, and other such drugs are covered, yet you have no problem with?

So before you are intimate with your wife, do you look at the schedule to see if its ok to do things? Sorry, some people are spontaneous and passionate with there significant other. Reading charts and consulting schedules doesn't lead to a happy and healthy marriage.

and p.s. to -

"That's about as practical as saying, if you want to lose weight, don't eat food. Or don't drink water. Can you please join the 21st century?"

Is it more logical to say simply get surgery if you want to lose weight? Because its basically what you are contributing it to. Some things are hard to do, but you do them. If you want to lose weight it is going to involve eating less food and working out. I guess in your mind its logical for everyone to have their stomach stapled...that way they can't eat and never have to worry about getting over weight. Perhaps we should have insurance pay for that for all the kids? Think of all the money we can save!!! No more diabetes, no more health risks...not to mention we will consume less...making over population less of an issue. I mean it is preventative right? I mean sure there are some major side effects, but the good totally outweighs the bad.

Interesting because studies show that people who use such methods actually have MORE sex than those who do not.

And I did not say I approve of insurance covering Viagra or Cialis.

My wife an I are the exception then I guess.

Sorry, I don't like leaving things to chance. Even Condoms are not 100% effective. Just like planning on being intimate on certain weeks/days.

The point is:

$77 a month for birth control is FAR less costly to an insurance company than an unplanned pregnancy.

If you can convince every single person in the US to refrain from pre-marital sex, and to have sex ONLY on the days the chart says when they won't conceive, you will be in the history books.

kfish,

I assume you are male, and perhaps young?

My mother (a pretty smart person) was Catholic, and practiced the "rhythm method". I am one of 6 kids.

Eventually, my parents got separate bedrooms. It's not nearly as scientific OR predictable as you think. Many factors can change a woman's ovulation time.

I like the idea of using fertility awareness, but men don't get it. If you are going to schedule sex you have to do it on all the safe days. That means you have to GET in the mood when you can get it because you are about to have to go a week without. If you have a man who cooperates it does work.

Yes, because I don't know anyone who has gotten pregnant while on the pill, taking the shot or having an IUD. I believe that people can say no to their desires if they want to, and that we are in control of our bodies and not the other way around. I know I am one of the few, but I do believe that.

And I am truly glad that you and your wife have such a passionate relationship. :)

Actually I am a 30 year old woman :). The rhythm method does not work, ha ha. I am talking more along the lines of NFP.

And I think the reason sex is higher for couples is because you know there are days you can't. Its like when you are on a diet...you tell yourself don't eat that cake, don't eat that cake...what happens when you get your first free day? Cake, and lots of it. You learn not to waste the valuable days.

And, on the days you don't have sex it is a good time to discover ways to be intimate in your relationship without the physical. Hand holding, talking, a date night with no expectations just enjoying each others company and truly focusing on that person in a different way and learning to express your love in a different way as well.

Please note I have not once disagreed with coverage of insurance. I am simply arguing with everyone's logic that this is the ONLY way to prevent pregnancy.

When I was 21 I worked for an all natural health care company and got the opportunity to work with a wide variety of doctors from naturopaths to scientist at Georgetown, and what I learned about birth control stopped me from using the Pill (yes I was on the pill). I just want people to realize there are other more natural methods that are available and that birth control does not have to be the "natural" and "logical" choice.

Physicist-retired:

You gave away the punchline of my joke before I could get it out! What do you call people who practice the rhythm method? Parents! You are correct that tracking ovulation is not an exact science and that is why it is not the most reliable form of birth control.

princessbride-

I am with you. My husband and I do not want children so I have been taking Depo-Provera shots every 3 months for years. I am at a loss as to why BCP's are so expensive when the shot is more effective and worry-free. I only pay $150/yr (out of pocket & not subsidized by insurance) for 4 DIY injections. That is certainly far below the cost of having a child and I would think the government and employers alike would jump all over it.

kfish,

If my wife is "really really really in the mood" on a day that is bad according to the chart, do you expect me to say "No, we can't!!! Look at the chart!!" lol. :-P

I do like to sleep in my bed and not in the cage with our dogs. lol.

I know the pill isn't 100% effective either. Just like working out and eating correctly is going to guarantee you will never have a heart attack.

I'm just saying $77 a month from the insurance company to cover the cost of an unplanned pregnancy is FAR cheaper. Now imagine if this unplanned pregnancy has a medical condition. The whole situation can cost millions to the insurance company instead of ~$1000 a year for birth control.

Heck, 20 years of birth control is less expensive than delivering 1 baby at the hospital. The insurance then still needs to pay for 18 years of coverage then on this child.

I gues I think if you don't mind risking a pregnancy then go for it, but if you for sure don't want to get pregnant you don't...if you are during your fertile time.

I should note that after a few months you are pretty positive about how the chart flows so its not like you have to check it every time you think you want to have sex. Pretty sure your wife knows when her period is about to start, its kind of the same thing...you know the signs, you know when it is good to go. But, I do think you both could have the self-control to say no, not this time if it was a fertile time and one of you were particularly in the mood.

John that is about how it works too (she will be in heat when ovulating) but in order for it to work, you would need to approach it like one of those diets where you ALWAYS eat breakfast whether you want it or not and do it on EVERY safe day. Then you can stand to go a week without. It's very complicated - most guys don't get it. Thats why it's so problematic. Also there is what Futuredoc said - it isn't an exact science. Add to that the busy schedule we have in every other aspect of life and well, personally I'd rather just take a pill. But kfish does have valid points it is an option.

How about those of us who are married and want to limit the size of our families?

You mean you got married and you can't even afford to buy condoms or sponges or whatever?

OomYaaqub: Birth control pills and other forms of hormonal birth control are more effective than condoms, sponges or whatever. Furthermore, many women use hormonal birth control for more than just preventing pregnancy. It is a legal medicine it should be affordable.

If you use a combination of barrier methods, such as a condom PLUS a sponge, your chances of pregnancy are quite low. And if you have a legitimate MEDICAL reason for the pill, that is completely different, since it is no longer medical.

Please don't tell me that preventing excess pregnancies is preventative medicine. I mean, exercise is also bona fide preventative medicine, but does that mean they have to cover a private swimming pool in everybody's backyard plus membership at the gym? Please try to understand what health insurance is intended to be FOR.

If my wife is "really really really in the mood" on a day that is bad according to the chart, do you expect me to say "No, we can't!!! Look at the chart!!" lol. :-P

Newsflash: there are OTHER things you and your wife can do to please each other on those days.

You mean you got married and you can't even afford to buy condoms or sponges or whatever?

Condoms aren't 100%, this is the reason why I am posting. I was an "unplanned" pregnancy.

So, basically you have an issue with the insurance companies paying $77 a month for birth control, but you have no issue with the insurance companies paying hundreds of thousands or even into the millions for an unplanned pregnancy and coverage until the child is 18 (I believe the new law covers until 25)? (ps, what happens if the child is born with a medical condition? The costs will be ASTRONOMICAL to the insurance company)

You're one of the reason why insurance is as expensive as it is.

Even Condoms are not 100% effective

No, they are not. I hate to give you the bad news, but NO method is 100% effective other than sterilization. My doctor did tell me that using two methods at the same time raises the theoretical odds greatly, which only makes sense when you think about it, especially if you understand statistics. So, a condom and foam, or a condom and a sponge. About the only advantage to the pill over those is that it will still work (usually) even if you are really drunk (provided you remembered to take it.)

Oom, here is another advantage of the pill. It gives coverage to people who are allergic to latex or foam and sponge. The pill is 99.9% effective when used correctly. Which is better than no coverage when you can't get the other stuff.

What I find funny is everyone keeps throwing around the $77 amount talking about why insurance won't pick it up and the reasoning. They also talk about the costs associated with the alternative..BUT they miss the point entirely. The $77 dollar argument IS what is wrong with healthcare costs. The woman in the article that brought it up did NOT say she had a "medical" need to take that contraceptive over any others...she said it made her moody and she gained weight on them. Now THAT is why healthcare costs have shot up astronomically. We have become a society of healthcare "wants" instead of "needs". The largest growing part of medical costs (not saying it is all to blame just saying it is the largest division) in the last 20yrs has been so called "cosmetic" surgeries. Now I am not degrading anyone who has gotten a "cosmetic" surgery done, just saying that when everyone loses sight of the real goal by bickering about $77 ask yourself instead...why isn't she trying something different that is free then? If there is an honest answer or a real medical reason then stand by them and protest as loud as you can....but if their answer is "it made me mooody"...uh going to work makes me moody...does that mean my healthcare provider should allow me to stay home for the rest of my life and pay all my bills for me since work makes me "moody"?

The case of the nun who was excommunicated for allowing an abortion for the sake of the mother ( not doing so would have killed both the fetus and the mother who already had kids ) should tell you how much the bishops care about women's health. As far as they're concerned, it's better for the women to not just have "health problems," but to die than give an inch to common sense.

Actually, Viagra is NOT covered by insurance -- nor should it be.

Christine,

Insurance coverage for Viagra exists in many states (but not all), and by many health plans. Currently, nearly half of the 300,000 men who use Viagra each week are being fully or partially reimbursed by their health insurers.

Viagra users in Montana are required to pay a $2 copayment, the same as is typically required for any other prescription medications.

Coverage for Viagra is not universal, but it certainly exists.

http://www.fwhc.org/health/viagra.htm

Just an FYI- Federal Government does NOT cover Viagra- not matter if you truely have a medical condition such as diabetes or Multiple Sclerosis.

And yes, birth control should be covered 100% and i am Catholic. Like people have already said- better to prevent a pregnancy to begin with than to have an abortion.

I think the viagra thing is a whole other issue. I would certainly not want to have that kind of a problem which is obviously a serious one effecting quality of life. It seems likely though, for a different demographic. They should cover both. It surprises me that they would cover fertility treatments though, which are likely to result in more higher risk pregnancies.But they do.

Mea culpa, Physicist. I know that the insurer I work for will likely never cover Viagra.

I think if insurance covers one "sex drug" it should cover them all. However we have to keep in mind that Viagra is not just for older men who sleep around. Viagra is for women too. Can you imagine if your husband or significant other was unable to achieve an erection?

Isn't that why God gave them fingers and tongues?

Isn't that why God gave them fingers and tongues?

Aint that the truth!

I have never worried about getting pregnant after some finger or tongue action. There are alternatives if you MUST have sex and do not have a condom on hand or are not on the pill...

HeelsnHairMetal : LOL!... good Lord, they should teach that in sex ed

But thats not sex. Thats foreplay.

Oh, sunny. <ROFL> Where to start?

My guess is with your partner.

KJ, Heels and Lyn, any one of you want to volunteer for a we bit of online remedial sex ed for ms. bunny, who can then pass it along to mr. mister? Don't forget the part(s) about this variety being safer, actually more intimate and often more satisfying, as well as absent the risks for pregnancy and STDs.

Well technically foreplay is part of sex (an important part) but it isn't actually sex (an analogy might be that it's like shopping isn't buying for example - one may or may not lead to the other)

But thats not sex. Thats foreplay.

Actually, anything that brings people to orgasm IS sex, no matter what Bill Clinton claimed.

Apparently Bill Clinton and I are of the same opinion on this one, but I sure didn't get it from him.

As Barbra Streisand said in one of her movies, "You say that was NOT making love? Well, whatever it was it sure beat hell out of doing the dishes."

Can I get an AMEN!!!!!!!

and the married women? When we don't want to get pregnant, we'll just have very unhappy husbands! ;)

Cute, but useless, solution for some. You want guys to take bith control, I guess.

"Birth control" is not a simple product that one can easily substitute, like "table salt".

Hormones are complicated and different in everyone. One woman may have normally lower levels, some higher.

I didn't realize how sensitive each product is, with regards to side effects. The formulas all vary , even switching to generic can be so different from the brand name.

It took my daughter several years to work with her knowledgeable OB/GYN until she found a brand she could tolerate, and the generic, when it became available, made her sick ...

But now, 5 years later she is doing well.

Everyone is different ... she can't even take ibuprofen with out her face swelling up. Hives from lawn chemicals (me carrying her by a recently treated lawn when she was a toddler ...), rashes from most laundry detergents ... no one else in the family was ever affect, but she was.

I don't assume anything anymore, and I trust anyone's judgement when it comes to a personal choice, for them.

Birth control applies to MEN too - takes two to tango, and to create humans.

That's right! How DARE women think they can enjoy sex, the way men do. What nerve! This equal rights stuff has just gotten completely out of control! Women should pay for their wanton lust by popping out at least one baby for every orgasm...

Who, Christine.....you're starting to sound like Jerry!!!

I personally enjoy sex and don't believe every orgasm needs to have a baby along with it.....as a matter of fact, it's easier to orgasm if know you can't get pregnant, imho.....

Of course men should assume equal responsibility for preventing pregnancy, but the reality is that if they refuse, women are the ones who (1) become pregnant and carry the child, (2) STILL carry the stigma associated with an unplanned pregnancy, particularly if they are single (which I know is ridiculous, but then you have Jerry-369642), (3) have to chase down the fathers for any form of financial support, and (4) must alter their own lives to take care of a child OR go through the emotional horror of abortion or adoption.

kjo, I was being totally sarcastic!!! I guess I can't inagine anyone who really thinks the way Jerry does. Anyway, my other comments should tell you where I really stand on this issue.

No worries, I got that.....just trying to be funny myself......keep up the good work...

kjo, I was being totally sarcastic!!! I guess I can't inagine anyone who really thinks the way Jerry does.

Lucky you. Unfortunately, I've actually met a few of them.

The sad thing is, half of them were deadbeat dads!

I agree 100%! However, if plans are only for generic pills, they should only be for generic condoms.

I'll vote for generic dick enhancement pills. But *gasp* no, no, no Moody! We need the strongest, best condoms out there, everywhere. Give 'em out as prizes - along with coupons - at grocery stores, school bake sales, online, at fast food places. Now that's a Happy Meal. If corp America can figure out how to make removable and washable cell phone screen protectors, when will they figure out how to make washable re-useable condoms? While they're at it, put stupid NFL logos on them or pictures of trucks, beer cans or dogs and see if more men will actually wrap their little mr. precious in one, for a change.

Ever seen what comes out of delivery rooms on any given day? It ain't pretty. And getting worse.

I am including condoms and sterilization for both sexes.

and as part of allowing the latter get rid of this stupid ( I suspect Cold-War remnant ) policy that disallows women from choosing to get their tubes tied until they're 25 or 30 or have had 2 kids. Some know as soon as they learn about the "birds and the bees" that they're npt going to ever want kids and should have the same control over that decision as the guy who's allowed to get a vasectomy on his 18th birthday before leaving any descendants.

Yosho- I agree completely with you...what are your views on how to handle women who have repeatedly given birth to babies addicted to drugs or keep having babies after their previous children have been removed by social services?

sam,

There's a difference between giving women the right to choose permanent BC and forcing it upon them, even for such cases as you mention. I see no difference in regards to women's rights between forced sterilization for the situations you describe and denying women reproductive choice.

I was asking as a legitimate question not to piss anyone off, sorry if it came off that way. I just don't think its right for a woman to repeatedly abuse children and be allowed to keep doing it by giving birth to more children with drug addictions. I think its such a touchy subject though because of the fact that you would have to impose BC but do these children deserve the torture they are going to go through? I just think its a question americans would prefer to ignore because of the negative feedback

Actually Yosho you completely miss the point of the age/child requirement for permanent BC. It is not a "cold-war era" throwback, it is a thought out ideal. You can't vote until you are 18 and can't drink until you are 21. Why? Because society has deemed that you are not mature and mentally apt enough to do either until those ages. The Permanent BC follows the same edict. The idea is that until you have reached 23(or 25 depending on your doctor/insurance) OR you have had 2 kids you might not have the mindset to know IF you will want kids later in life. THAT is the problem not "politics". Trust me at 18 everyone "knows it all", at 25 "everyone knows 18 yr olds don't know anything...BUT 25 yr olds DO know it all", and at 30 "everyone realizes we never knew half of what we thought and probably never will, lol"

sam,

Wasn't pissed off, sorry if it came across that way. I was just trying to state my response as concisely as possible. While I share your concerns about the situations you mentioned,I was addressing it as a matter of freedom of choice. I see imposing a well-intended policy to remove of a woman's reproductive capabilities without her consent as being parallel to restricting freedom of speech to eliminate the possibility of someone being offended by controversial statements ( and, to be clear, I'm not accusing you of doing so, just making a comparison on the subject of human rights ). Both freedoms carry risks and costs, but I don't think that human rights should be restricted on that basis, though in the example you provided I could see a measure allowing or encouraging doctors to discuss the option with a patient in that situation.

mr6317,

Even with the factors you mention, I fail to see how continuing to impose different age restrictions based on the gender of the patient isn't sexist and wrong. An 18-year-old know-it-all man can make the decision for permanent BC with no objection from the doctor or policy restricting that decision, but a woman the same age lacks the mental qualifications to make the same decision?

Women are given equal credit for decision-making in the eyes of public policy in the areas you mention, but for some reason they aren't given equal credit when it comes to the ability to make the decision regarding permanent BC ( and responsibility to live with any possibility of regretting the decision later )that men are, and that doesn't make sense to me. The only reasons I can see are the Cold-War remnant basis I mentioned or a remnant of the same thinking that women's capacity for rational thinking was less than men's that kept women from voting for so long, or maybe just old-fashioned control of women by making sure that fertility to attract a potential husband is maintained longer.

Any way you look at it, how is this not at least an outdated policy, due to geopolitical changes, or not sexist, given the age differences in the policy?

If free birth control ends up promoting promiscuity, excess sexual behavior, etc., etc., so be it. At least the participants will be protected for unwanted pregnancy.

Contraception for life is a lot cheaper on the health insurance than prenatal care, delivery, and the insurance for the new baby for 18 years.

Seeing as how birth control also treats other conditions as well as heavy menstrual cramps, I would say YES, it should be covered!

Ummm - many monogamous married couples use birth control as well. So they shouldn't have insurance coverage to help them limit the size of their families?

Actually, smoking cesation is covered here. As are YMCA memberships for at risk groups (mental health patients, welfare recipients, etc) So, yes, why not cover something that will prevent a VERY big expense to the system, and the person financially, physically and mentally?

Subrbanmom

Did you read the article? $40 vs $13000+. No comparison.

"A PriceWaterhouseCoopers study commissioned by NBGH estimated that the cost to health plans of providing preventive family planning services is about $40 per member annually. A typical family policy costs about $13,000 a year.

'The amount of money they're talking about is minuscule compared to overall premium costs' ...."

And an unwanted baby could cost society a lot more than that. Just because you deny reality doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Sburbman, my insurance covers smoking cessation methods and also gym memberships, so why not BC for this peri-menopausal married woman that likes to partake of the carnal knowledge?

Sburbnman writes: Along the same logic, should smoking cessation, health club memberships, healhty foods, etc. also be covered? After all, it's better to stop people from smoking than pay for emphysema or cancer treatment; better to have people workout than pay for osteoporosis, muscular problems, etc., later; better to have people eat healthy foods than treat obesity related illnesses later!

Works for Kaiser Permanente, and has since WWII.

"A PriceWaterhouseCoopers study commissioned by NBGH estimated that the cost to health plans of providing preventive family planning services is about $40 per member annually. A typical family policy costs about $13,000 a year.

The flip side of that is lower profit margins for the providers, both immediately from smaller families and long-term from potential future customers who aren't conceived thanks to birth control.

Insurance companies and religious leaders on the same page on that long-term factor...

Ummm - many monogamous married couples use birth control as well. So they shouldn't have insurance coverage to help them limit the size of their families?

No, they should do what my husband and I did, namely take some personal responsibility and pay for it themselves.

Amen.

However, I have to change from the Pill to much more expensive form because it really does affect you emotionally.

How bout that. Taking hormones can actually mess with your mind? Just think what they do to your body. WHY would anyone do that when barrier methods are so available and cheap? (I'm not counting women with some medical condition that is actually best treated with them.) You don't have sex every day, so why would you want take a contraceptive pill every day, especially when they have so many potentially harmful side effects? At least you only have to use condoms, foam, or sponges when you actually need them.

One of the great things about marriage is I can have sex whenever I want, no need for barriers to get in the way. The idea of barriers, what is the fun it that? I have luckily never had an unplanned pregnancy but no big deal if I do. I am getting the copper and will continue to have sex the way God intended a married couple to, free from worry, schedules, and barriers all thanks to BC.

Sterilization I can see, as it is a one time expense. Vasectomies are not all that expensive.

So married people shouldn't have sex?

Please explain to my husband that we are not going to have sex anymore because we don't want children right now...

wow. so, are you married? this is an extremely ignorant comment.

Yeah...And no one has ever been able to explain exactly why chastity is considered a virtue.

So married people shouldn't have sex unless they want kids? WTF????That is some nonsense if I have ever heard it. If we weren't supposed to do it, it wouldn't feel so DAMN GOOD!

I've been happily married for 10 years and sex is part of our daily life and we have NEVER wanted children so we use birth control.

I totally agree with you rebecca! I don't think ANYONE should have sex. The mere fact that people "climax" in the first place is pure coincidence, and should not be used as a form of enjoyment. People should cease having sex and remain chaste for their entire lives.....So that our race will go extinct and the earth can go back normal!!......... Pfft......idiot!

Yes, I believe that birth control should be covered. I, myself, have endometriosis and its treated by birth control. It would be great if it were covered!

This just in:

RED STATES have more teen pregnancy, single-parenting, and divorce than BLUE STATES.

So you get what you pay for, I guess. Pay a little now, or a lot forever.

Chaa,

I hear you. My daughter is using the bc for "possible endometriosis" since she was a teen ... such an easy and inexpensive solution. We had the choice of doing exploratory procedures (not as easy or inexpensive), but why waste the money just to 'know for sure"? It wouldn't change anything.

We were so fortunate to have a doctor who listened to her. I wish I had had that option ... I suffered for years with a severe case, and was so fortunate to easily have 2 healthy kids in between 2 major surgeries (no more kids possible, but wow).

She hopefully will be pain-free until she wants or chooses to have children (assuming that she can, but we will assume that is the case).

LMAO wow tpeopel like this actually exist

obviously a red state righty

Our daughter has been on BC for almost three years. No, it's not to prevent pregnancy, although I'm not dumb enough to believe that is a secondary benefit, she uses it to prevent ovarian cysts. She had her first, and hopefully her last, when she was 14. I don't ever want to see any of my children in that much pain ever again. Our insurance company doesn't cover it, so we pay the complete price. No, it's not extremely expensive, but it is $24.00 a month. We are lucky that our employer doesn't prevent us from being reimbursed through the cafeteria plan. This is a prescription controlled substance and should be covered by insurance.

If you don't want kids then DON"T have sex!!!!!!! Chasity is a lost virtue!!!!

Anyone else counting how many pull the post-and-run with this kind of self-righteous one-liner and never respond to the responses challenging their thinking?

The reason I have not responded was because I was at work.................I have the right just like everyone else to state my opinion.........and if it bothers you....then....SUCK IT UP!!!!

If you don't like my comments, then DON"T READ THEM!!!! its that simple!!!!

I don't give a flip if you all don't like my comments.......

No sarcasm intended: sorry about the misunderstanding with you being at work. I apologize for the assumption that you were doing the "post and run" that I've seen others do.

With the full spirit of "diplomacy" I wish to apologize for mistaking you for someone who would rather jump into insults and angry comments than actually discuss their opinions, even if they are different, which is supposedly the purpose of Newsvine.

I don't give a flip if you all don't like my comments.......

With all due respect, I must ask, if you don't care what people think then why make the comments at all? Or, at least, if you do so out of your right to contribute and exercise your First Amendment rights, then why take such an angry tone in your responses instead of dismissing people's replies or contributing to the discussion as opposed to lashing out in your disapproval of people's feedback?

I get mad when people start insulting me just because I don't happen to agree with them. I do care what other people have to say, but that does not mean that I have to put up with their stupid remarks about me!!!

I offer a quote from someone whose opinion I'm sure you cherish:

If you don't like my comments, then DON"T READ THEM!!!! its that simple!!!!

That common-sense advice, though angrily stated, isn't reserved for a chosen few. It also carries applies to a number of areas of human life. "If you don't like animals getting killed for your food, don't eat meat!" or "If you don't like premarital sex, don't have premarital sex" or "If you don't want approve of violence on TV, turn it off!"

I did apologize and try to get into a more on-topic discussion, but you'd rather focus on your anger and indignation. So be it. I'll take your advice and make sure I'm not at risk of accidentally reading your comments and being the target of your anger ( which you seem to think is your exclusive right, even after insulting even married couples by insinuating that they are promiscuous even in monogamy and expecting everyone to contritely take it or expect your angry retorts ) in the future.

Welcome to "ignore."

Rebecca, I would like to apologize for my tone in the previous post. It comes off as extremely inappropriate and it reflects poor taste. Although our opinions greatly differ, we both have the right to voice them without any name calling.

people should NOT be having sex outside of marriage!!!!! and even married people should observe chastity!!!! I am against birth control and abortion.........on the other hand.....marriage is not about seeing how many kids you can have............

Redneck Angel,

I really wish that were true.

Unfortunately, to get contraceptives for free, you need to qualify for and enroll in state or federal programs that assist low-income women. Local Planned Parenthood centers usually have staff who can help women enroll in appropriate programs.

Some Planned Parenthood centers offer birth control on a sliding-fee scale, meaning the price you pay is based on your income.

As for free health clinics, The US Department of Health and Human Services provides health clinics that can help you get birth control at a reduced price but usually not for free.

In reality, it's not as easy as some think.

Wow Rebecca. Go have fun with all you Shaker friends. See how well that total chastity thing worked out for them....

Rebecca reeaaally needs to get laid.

people should NOT be having sex outside of marriage!!!!! and even married people should observe chastity!!!!

Why, Rebecca? What's wrong with sex? Could it be that those who preach abstinence, do so because they know that if they can control your sexual behavior, they will control you? Organized religion has known--and done--that for millenia; men have used restrictions on women's sexual behavior as a control mechanism for far longer than that. Even governments at every level have dabbled in this. Maybe what's needed here is less prudishness and more critical thought?

Rebecca -

REPEAT: This just in:

RED STATES have more teen pregnancy, single-parenting, and divorce than BLUE STATES.

So you get what you pay for, I guess. Pay a little now, or a lot forever.

It would be hilarious if it were not so crazy, stupid, sad, and hypocritical.

people should NOT be having sex outside of marriage!!!!! and even married people should observe chastity!!!! I am against birth control and abortion

Well, Rebecca, no one is forcing you to have sex, get married, or have an abortion. Your rights are secure. You've posted the same thing more than once, and I think you made your opinion known. Might I suggest you find another way to say it or at least make some points regarding the benefits of taking that position if you want have a chance of people taking you more seriously, because otherwise we're just going to figure you have nothing but righteous indignation as a motive and lose interest quickly.

While you're at it, please include how hypothetically making your opinion into policy wouldn't infringe on the liberties others have to follow your example, treat their bodies like an amusement park, or find a more moderate path.

you left out the male factor in this equation.

Since I've never met a man who thought birth control was his responsibility.....

How much do you think the male factor would be?

Well said. I too am married, 2 wonderful (planned) girls. I had a tubal ligation after my second (permanent BC for those out there who seem to be lacking some education) and still need to be on the pill or I could be hospitalized for weeks at a time, without even having sex (Jerry, Rebecca etc). So, cover a couple of dollars for the pill or $800 per day for hospitalization? Not all birth control is used for the same reason but it should be covered for all.

and isn't the choice to use birth control responsible?

i really wan to know if all of these people who are saying keep your legs closed, and all that other sex is only for babies nonsense, were virgins until they had a baby and once that baby was born, they never had sex again. comments like those are just unreal and if that is how you feel and live, i feel very sorry for you. And if you loons don't have babies, you must be virgins right!!!!

and isn't the choice to use birth control responsible?

Its not a choice if someone else is forced to pay for it. Oh yes, I choose to spend someone else's money...

i really wan to know if all of these people who are saying keep your legs closed, and all that other sex is only for babies nonsense, were virgins until they had a baby and once that baby was born, they never had sex again. comments like those are just unreal and if that is how you feel and live, i feel very sorry for you. And if you loons don't have babies, you must be virgins right!!!!

I choose to have sex AND assume all financial responsibility for the prevention of pregnancy. I use condoms and hope they work. If they dont, oh well, thats the risk I ran for engaging in sexual activity. And its a big risk, because condoms are nowhere near 100% effective and I would be stuck raising a kid out of wedlock.

I think that companies opting to cover the costs of elective birth control methods is fine. I even think its admirable. But FORCING a company to cover elective medication is a bit too far in my book.

Its not a choice if someone else is forced to pay for it.
...
I choose to have sex AND assume all financial responsibility for the prevention of pregnancy.

But if you should get pregnant, the insurance company (i.e. "someone else") will get the tab. It's cheaper to pay for the BC.

But FORCING a company to cover elective medication is a bit too far in my book.

But wait. Aren't ALL medications elective? I mean, you don't HAVE to take them. And, like condoms vs the pill, lots of these prescriptions have "alternatives" you can probably grow in your own garden or make in your own kitchen at no cost to your insurance company.

So what types of preventative care do you think they should have to pay for? (some examples? just curious)

But wait. Aren't ALL medications elective? I mean, you don't HAVE to take them.

Medications that prevent, treat, or cure REAL medical problems are not elective. In order to maintain their life or health some people have to take certain medications. One's health is not adversely affected if a woman does not take BC (except for people who have serious medical reasons, like a hormonal issue or heavy, painful periods).

So what types of preventative care do you think they should have to pay for? (some examples? just curious)

I think doctor visits, certain blood tests, mammograms, etc. should be covered because they help prevent or catch certain diseases or disorders that if undetected can cause SERIOUS problems. I think insurance companies should HAVE to pay for things that pertain to preventing diseases and problems that pose a health risk to the buyer. I think she should be able to OPT whether or not to cover things like Viagra, BC pills, etc. unless there is some pressing medical reason as to why a person needs it.

Many women take the pill to prevent or reduce the symptoms of things like endometriosis, ovarian cysts, painful periods, heavy periods, no periods, and other issues. Also pregnancy can be extremely dangerous even in the US and many women have allergies to things like latex and sponges, so how is this not preventative?

To Meerkat

I like the nik by the way. it is bad because the holy bible does not speak of it, so it must be unholy. And if it is unholy it must be bad.