Half of us are accidents!

Gee - that Public Option keeps looking better and better. Why don't we have that? Oh yeah, Obama caved in to the Republicans when he had a Super Majority in congress. Well, at least they are repaying the favor now and helping out with the budget. (hahaha)

Steve, how did Obama and/or Republicans get into a reply to my post? Whether you pay for birth control or not, whether you use birth control or the rhythm method or abstinence, my sentiment remains the same. No need to make it political.

No need to make it political.

But it is political. The core debate here is whether people should have to pay for a given necessary medical service. It's only a political debate in the US, because everywhere else in the world where medical services are available at all, it's unthinkable that basic healthcare might not be considered a fundamental right. Also, everywhere else in the civilized world, religion is not allowed to influence government to the extent of prohibiting the free provision of a necessary service like birth control. The politics are inextricable from the article, or from any complete discussion of it.

The article is political. My original post was meant to be common sensical and comical. Wakehead seems to be the only one who got the intended humor in it. Believe me, I knew there would be a barrage of political comments, so I refrained.

You can't argue with the logic here. Birth control pills, for example, are much cheaper both financially and emotionally than introducing a, many times, unwanted child into this world.

Politics and ideology have no place in this proposal despite what some ideologues on either side may think, but as usual, they'll chime in anyway.

So, being we have vehicles and there are so many mechanics in the usa should we have our cars worked on for free? The same applies to health care as both are a business looking to make a profit. Just becouse a profession exists doesn't mean you should get any of its services for free.

Even cheaper option: ASPIRIN grasped tightly between the knees

Or an ounce of prevention may be worth about $250,000 (on the low end)!

ForwardObserver....so following your logic, if a vehicle breaks down on the side of the road, and the driver cannot afford a mechanic, it is just left there or taken to the junkyard.....so an unwanted baby should be left on the side of the road? Unless the moral right wants to fork it over to take care of all of these unwanted babies (which they have never done before) I think the best cost option and most morally acceptable thing to do is free birth control for all. This also has the added benefit of reducing abortions.

Phil -

How many years have conservative, religious nut jobs (like you) been preaching abstinence? Come on, tell me . . . how many years? The answer is the same as the number of years the Catholic Church has been around. THOUSANDS.

So people like YOU have preached that for THOUSANDS of years, how has that worked out so far? You would think that THOUSANDS of years worth of PROOF would cause a logical person to evaluate the success, or in this case the lack of success, of their position. But that would require logic.

Hypo... the person that had the baby is responsible for their actions. If I run a red-light at an intersection and can't afford to pay the ticket does that mean I'm not liable for my actions. People need to be responsible for their actions.

Unfortunately, the culture warriors (who are likely the most Un-american americnas out there) will fight this tooth and nail and their idiotic representatives who have no spine because being elected is more important to them than actually performing the duties they are sworn to will listen to them.

So very little will change. Look at the Debt Crisis. We have pretty much the same group of morons racing us to an economic disaster to try to score political points.

ForwardObserver

the person that had the baby is responsible for their actions. If I run a red-light at an intersection and can't afford to pay the ticket does that mean I'm not liable for my actions. People need to be responsible for their actions.

From an economic and statistical perspective, lower income and poor families generally have more children. So people with very little or no money are more likely to have more children than those with money.

Those are the FACTS.

It does not matter if they "should" be responsible for their own children, we end up paying for them. What people "should" do, and what they actually do, are two very different things. Preach all you want, it will NEVER change.

I would rather pay for birth control, or pay for the abortions, instead of paying for the welfare of unwanted babies.

People should be responsible for their actions, which is why birth control is chosen by a lot of people. It is the responsible thing to do.This wouldn't make it free, just be included in health care packages without women being penalised for it. Opposers of birth control seem to want life at any price, with no regard for what happens to the child, mother, family or society. That, to my mind, is much more irresponsible, resulting in neglected and abused children, higher mortality rate in child birth, poorer health for mothers and higher costs to society all round.

If they are going to pay for birth control for women, they should also cover the cost of condoms for men. After all, not only do condoms prevent unwanted pregnancies, they also help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Therefor, following this panels rationale, condoms should be covered as well. How many times have w heard the liberals preaching that birth control is not just the woman's responsibility. The expense of condoms contributes to their lack of use among lower income people just as much as the cost of birth control pills contribute to their lack of use, if not more so. Plus, any health care law or policy should not be discriminatory. To cover birth control pills and not condoms would be discriminatory towards men.

Phil, the Catholic church knows that the more they preach abstinence, the more people will fornicate, therefore swelling their numbers, wealth and power. Preaching abstinence is a covert invitation to breed. They just use reverse psychology. Looks like it worked on you, Phil.

JS in SD

If they are going to pay for birth control for women, they should also cover the cost of condoms for men. After all, not only do condoms prevent unwanted pregnancies, they also help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Therefor, following this panels rationale, condoms should be covered as well. How many times have w heard the liberals preaching that birth control is not just the woman's responsibility. The expense of condoms contributes to their lack of use among lower income people just as much as the cost of birth control pills contribute to their lack of use, if not more so. Plus, any health care law or policy should not be discriminatory.

JD

Believe it or not, NJ Medicaid and its associated HMO's already do cover condoms for BOTH MEN & WOMEN!!! What a joke! And would you believe the recipients have the audacity to come yell at me, the pharmacist, "What do you mean they only cover 30 condoms per month!"

ForewardObserver,

The article is not about giving out free birth control, it's about requiring insurance companies that we pay hundreds of dollars to every month (mine costs me about 1/3 of my total monthly income for my son, my husband, and I) to actually cover something. There needs to be more regulations put on these super rich insurance companies. They make money by raising their rates to whatever they want, then undercutting the doctors by making them sign a contract saying they can only charge so much. I work in medical billing and Blue Cross now pays the doctors less than Medicare does (at least in CA). If the doctors don't agree, they are not a "preferred provider" so the insured has to pay even more. Not to mention, they employ people who's only job is to deny medical claims, most of which are perfectly legit. They count on the fact that either you don't have the time to appeal or think it wont help. Insurance companies are one of the most corrupt businesses in the US. Oh, and news flash, they already give out free birth control to people who don't have insurance. It's about time that those of us who work hard and pay for our insurance get a little something for what we pay for.

JS in SD: condoms may have same preventative measures however birth control is used for a W I D E variety of health conditions, such as regulating a womans cycle because their hormones are out of wack, to preventing the pain and formations of fibrocystic disease many women are diagnosed with, this disease is a common factor to breast lumps, that often scare the majority of the women who get it because of well cancerous tumors. To forgo your point of discriminatory policies, "The law already requires most health plans to provide standard preventive care for people of BOTH sexes at no additional charge to patients, but the women's health recommendations were considered so sensitive that the nonpartisan institute was asked to examine the issue and report back." (first paragraph of the article) thus you your argument is already answered. As the majority of the population who experience prostate cancer, testicular cancer as well as the oh so popular erectile dysfunction are men, just as the majority of the population who experience cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, breast cancer (affect both sexes however more so women) endometrial, gestational throphoblastic tumors, to name a few, most measures in insurance isnt covered for women because of the fact that its "sensitive" why? because its women we are talking about. So your discriminatory remarks are now turned, women are the ones who are discriminated in health care, whether majority of men like it or not, just how its written in the books. I remember i had to co-pay for the HPV vaccine even though i was not sexually active thus at no risk, but i still had to pay. This vaccine i believe is now covered and now provided to males at the appropriate ages. So what about discrimination again? hope you got my point.

mandij- I loved how my insurance changed from HMO to PPO, and at the meeting about it, the Anthem person was talking about how great it is that 'they cover preventative completely without the $20 copay', never mind the 20/month increase in premium and 3k deductible.

Thoughts from Cali

or may I call you Richard?

You sir, are a tight A$$ed Californian (I assume from the name) that does not understand either sarcasm or humour.

I was a sailor for 15 years, believe me, abstinence is not in my vocabulary. I do however support stopping kids getting stuffed, both physically and metaphorically, and an Aspirin may be a good place to start for them.

You following me Richard?

The real problem is that the people who need birth control the most are not responsible enough to take it and we end up supporting their children. This would help though.

I think that anyone receiving welfare should not be able to have any kids while they are receiving it until they get educated and get a job. If you already have a kid, the government would pay childcare while you go to school but you would have to finish and get a job. None of this starting one program, quitting and on to the next. We need to figure out how to make these people contribute. There are way too many.

The economy is bad right now and people who ordinarily are never jobless are having problems but I am sick of the people who make welfare a way of life and have several children while receiving it. There is just something completely wrong with that picture.

Here is a birth controll method that will work:

• No welfare after the first child.
• No welfare after 2 years lifetime.

I don't understand why birth control is a cost that needs to be covered by the government. People don't choose to get sick, you can choose to have unpredicted sex and get pregnant. I know you don't choose to get pregnant but it turns out if you don't have sex you will get pregnant 0% of the time, there isn't another medical condition that can boost that kind of prevention rate.

I don't understand why birth control is a cost that needs to be covered by the government

The key word here is 'need'...one of the reasons it needs to be is because the taxpayers pay over $35 million a DAY for child birth costs, not to mention the cost of child raising. Although we cannot force irresponsible folks to take the birth control, maybe offering it for free will at least help the problem. End result....less child poverty, neglect, and abuse.

a lot of people here are forgetting the other benefits for using birth control other than what its name implicates. Many women dont just use birth control to have sex all the time. Im one of them, not sexually active but because i have fibrocystic disease and its painful once my cycle comes around, my closest friend also uses the pill because her hormones are also out of wack, we arent out there on a sex rampage because its all "under control", plus it gets expensive AND we use the lowest dose possible. Therefore remember the people who use it for reasons other than to have sex, but also remember the poor kids who suffer because their parents arent as logical as we wish them to be, we cant control other peoples choices, thats why we need to have education, and preventative practices available to everybody, and have it available to people who need it for other purposes also.

Sophia,

Do you feel the need to scream every comment you post?

It's all very well to say people should be abstinent and blah blah blah; they will not be. It's all very well to say everyone should be responsible for their own children; not everyone will be or can be. It is much, much cheaper to pay for birth control than it is to wait until unwanted kids are adults that, perhaps, commit crimes and go to jail. Running prisons = way more expensive than birth control and education.

Basically, you are going to pay for those children one way or another. The cheaper way is covering birth control. The more expensive way, which we've been trying out for years, is building prisons. Let's try the cheaper way for awhile and see how that works out.

annie13 wrote "This wouldn't make it free, just be included in health care packages without women being penalised for it."

Women consume more in health care. Shouldn't female insurance rates be increased? I don't see the male side of birth control, condoms, covered by health insurance.

sophia wrote "JS in SD: condoms may have same preventative measures however birth control is used for a W I D E variety of health conditions, such as regulating a womans cycle because their hormones are out of wack"

Then, it's not birth control. It is a therapeutic treatment for a condition.

Vincent- A development of male birth control pills would be great-

Since health insurance is often offered through employment, it would be very difficult to have different rates for women and men

There's a whole branch of math called Actuarial Science which produces some very smart (and socially inept - just kidding) geeks called Actuaries that make tons of money figuring out things like insurance risks.

If it was shown that women (or men) actually cost more money to insure, it would be easy and legal to charge more or less accordingly.

You see this with life insurance now - men pay almost twice as much for the same coverage as women because men die sooner and are also more likely to do things like ride motorcycles and skydive.

You also see the same type of thing with smokers and health (and life) insurance. Many companies are now charging smoking employees more for the employee's share of insurance premiums. Many companies have been eating the difference in cost between a smoker vs a non-smoker in the company's portion of the premium payment in order to make it "look fair" or to ease accounting.

But, since the nerdy actuaries have found that even though smokers live shorter lives they end up costing insurance companies a lot more, it is perfectly legal to charge them more.

At JS....most health departments across the country hand out condoms for free...go there to get them if you cannot afford it. Birth Control pills are not free anywhere that I am aware of, and also require a Doctors Appt to get them!

@seattlereign - 'I know you don't choose to get pregnant but it turns out if you don't have sex you will get pregnant 0% of the time, there isn't another medical condition that can boost that kind of prevention rate.' - I take it you aren't a Christian.

Christians never have sex? Could have fooled me.

Insurance will pay for VIAGRA but not BIRTH CONTROL...HELLO!?

SEXIST & ARCHAIC!

Here's a good reason not to cover birth control methods:

After abortions became legal, unwanted pregnancies and births to teen girls increased. After the advent of the birth control pill, unwanted pregnancies and births to teen girls increased. Data doesn't go back far enough to cover the invention of the condom, but odds are the same is true there.

The reality is that, the more ways there are to avoid or correct a mistake, the more careless people become about it. This is true regardless of the type of mistake or the severity of its consequences. I'm not saying that these options should be removed, but getting them should require some level of thought and effort. This ensures that the risk of pregnancy will be taken more seriously.

Let's force women back into corsets and petticoats while you're at it.

Come on, be realistic! I come from a very conservative small town, which by law in that state educators can't educate kids about birth control. They can only educate abstinence. Well a lot of good that does; the STD and teen pregnancy rate in that town is sky high and it's not for lack of morals.... On people paying higher premiums for other people's birth control? Not a bad idea. It's cheaper than paying into medicare and social security what they would pay if that many more babies are born.... We are all interconnected. Aint none of living in a box disconnected from the rest of the world.

Yes.. because married women who have sex should ALWAYS be preggo... Abstinence doesn't make sense in many, many cases!

Kim-

For some, there's a stigma attached to saying no!

Further proof that education laws need to change.

KIM: Congratulations!!! You are hereby notified as the grand winner in the "Single Dumbest, most inane comment uttered this month!!!"

It's cretans with a mindset like yours that would drag woman and civilization back to the Dark Ages.

Well done!!!

The Catholic Church can't make ordained priests say "no" - how do you think that it could possibly work for horny teenagers? Sex is basic, ingrained, and it's going to happen. A child should be a joyous reward for hard work, love and planning, not a dreaded punishment for sex.

Religion and the Catholic Church have been telling people to say NO to sex for THOUSANDS of years . . . how has that worked out so far?

Seriously, how many thousands of years of PROOF do you need before you realize that abstinence does not work? Another thousand years? 2 thousand? 3?

And that lack of abstinence should be your problem, not the taxpayers.

@Kim

I don't know from your unisex name if you are male or female, but sex is a normal behavior that occurs after puberty. Hormones control the urge for copulation...for you Kim that means intercourse. Very few adults can control their urges to have sex, married or not. It is even harder for young emotionally immature ppl. Birth control...better yet long-term methods are ideal on this overpopulated, less resouceful planet. The supply of food is lower than there are ppl on this planet. Use common sense, if you have any.

Support the "Insurance companies" and women's clinics to provide free birth control to those who want it. The stigma of these services need to stop now. All ppl, male or female, need access to birth control regardless of their socioeconomic status. For you Kim that means no matter how much money they have. Wake up! Just saying NO only works a few times, if any.

That's a ridiculous way of thinking. It's simply unrealistic.

Guess what-it becomes the tax payers' problem when the parents go on welfare and government assistance to pay for the child. Birth control is cheaper.

Kim-you are presuming that people who can not afford children or can not care for them are all single. Do married people need to "say no" too?

Most assuredly husbands everyhere will love the JUST SAY NO idea. Sorry we don't need any more babies so I am just going to say No, now and forever. Yeah thats super practical. It won't matter what we can afford, it won't matter that we have no job, it won't matter because morally speaking someone told us its the thing to do because we don't want a baby and effective birth control and the related health care costs are just too expensive, so no sex for us, we just have to control those natural instincts. God expects us to. /sarc

Not only that, but if we can get rid of the stigma surrounding condom acquiring and usage, and get condoms out for free, then we could make a serious dent in STD rates as well as pregnancy.

Now, get off your high horse and either learn about sex education other than abstinence (yeah, and how well is saying "NO" going to do against a rapist, I'd like to know), or just shut yourself back under your rock and come out in another thousand years. I'm sure jebus will have shown up by then. Promise.

Unfortunately there is a place that gives condoms out for free- it's called Planned Parenthood. You know, the place where SOME people say it's only open for abortions...

Condom money is being nixed by a certain political group..

If the Republicans keep on having their way, there will not be any Planned Parenthood's left. It's too bad the parents of these Republican's who are trying to destroy people's lives and tell everybody how to live didn't use birth control.

Maybe we shouldn't pay for welfare for people that can't adhere to simple birth control practice... see how many pregnancies happen when these girls (and guys) know that there will be no help for them in they are stupid enough to have unpredicted sex and get knocked up

Let's force women back into corsets and petticoats while you're at it.

No, just force the ones who cannot even support their own self to take birth control until their situation improves.

Maybe we shouldn't pay for welfare for people that can't adhere to simple birth control practice...

Sounds good on the surface until you realize we would be letting children starve. Better solution..forced birth control. End result...less child poverty, neglect, and abuse....& less costs to taxpayers. One way to improve the poverty cycle is to not allow the woman (& 'man') to do something that virtually guarantees they and their child remain in poverty.

I'd like to see a male birth control pill get the same health insurance coverage as the female birth control pill.

I'd like to see a male birth control pill that works.

Although kim put it bluntly, there is a lot of truth behind it. The fact is that this recommendation by IOM has nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with politics. IOM may be independent, but it is hardly impartial.

Look at the purpose of insurance. It is for treatment for sickness, illness, accidents, etc. In other words, for things that aren't normal. Pregnancy is a natural condition, and surprisingly, results from sex! So, if you don't want to have kids, don't have sex, or take protective measures.

Don't get me wrong, the Gods know I love sex as much, if not more so than the next person. But, I know that it is my responsibility, not anyone else's. The premise that the pills be free is fallacious. If someone wants to hand them out for free, let them. But, to force me and everyone else to pay for it is ridiculous. It's called prioritizing. If you don't want to get pregnant, it's your responsibility to make sure you don't get pregnant. WOW! What a novel concept!

Kim...wow...I really feel sorry for your partner!!! To deny a natural act is just wrong!

lol Seattle... what exactly is "unpredicted sex"?

And what happens to those people who's circumstances change? It could happen to you ya know.

Witchrunner -

this recommendation by IOM has nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with politics. IOM may be independent, but it is hardly impartial.

It has EVERYTHING to do with medicine. In this particular case, it is the prevention of pregnancy by drugs (birth-control pills) and/or mechanical means (condoms, IUDs, etc.). It is a PART of an IOM report, not the entirety of a report, "Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps", an outgrowth of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010", commonly and disparagingly known as "ObamaCare".

There are few things in medicine that come without social, economic, and public health consequences - drugs, joint replacements, nutritional supplements, use (or misuse) of clinical guidelines, you name it.

In most IOM reports, the existing knowledge is extensively examined (peer-reviewed journals/books, Wikipedia and most "medical websites are interpretations of primary knowledge and are rarely, if ever considered. Some or all of the consequences above are examined (two of the most important IOM reports at the turn of the millennium were To Err is Human and the follow-up Crossing the Quality Chasm which shed light on medication and procedural errors, their cost, and what might be done about them).

In some cases, the matter at hand is also Political as to how this fits into an individual morals, political party, and/or religious beliefs/dogma.

Obviously, to some this is a "hot button" religious/political/economic subject. To others this a Public Health and professional ethical issue.

@seattlereign - 'Maybe we shouldn't pay for welfare for people that can't adhere to simple birth control practice... see how many pregnancies happen when these girls (and guys) know that there will be no help for them in they are stupid enough to have unpredicted sex and get knocked up' - Yes thats it....all these 17 yr olds are actually totally responsible girls that intentionally get pregnant to get more welfare....because you know, taking care of a baby and getting welfare is way easier than working a minimum wage job and making more money. Your logic astounds me.....

Oo Oo- I figured out what unpredicted sex is!!!!

It's called- got lucky.

Right? Right?

Ok, nevermind...

I've actually had people on welfare tell me that they aren't going to have any more children because they have reached the limit as to how much additional money per child they are allowed to receive.

That is usually the first time they come to the pharmacy with their Medicaid card to get birth control pills or condoms.

witchrunner -

Will you give the "pregnancy is a NATURAL state" crap a rest? You know what else is a "natural" state? Death. Yet we have an entire sector of the economy (about 20% at last estimate) dedicated to prevention and postponement of that "natural" condition. Just because you decide to go and put "natural" in front of a word doesn't mean that it's desirable.

For instance, snake venom is natural. Cancer is natural. Diabetes, infection, broken bones, all natural. The most toxic and addictive substance in the world? Nicoteine: 100% natural. Less than 1mL of pure nicoteine on your unbroken skin is more than enough to kill you. But, apparently it's okay, because it's "natural."

All these "right to life" MORONS keep forgetting about the OTHER life in the equation: that of the mother. And no, pregnancy and childbirth are not risk-free, medically speaking. There are a host of complications that can occur, and conditions that arise from pregnancy run the gamut from temporary to permanent and inconvenient to life-threatening. So don't give me this utter BS about how pregnancy is a "natural" state and birth-control is "unnatural" and therefore undesirable.

Know what else? You computer is unnatural. Better turn it off and leave your home and strip your clothes off and go live in the woods with wolves. Don't worry, wolves are natural, therefore they will accept you into their world of sunshine and lollipops (stricken for being unnatural).

Just wondering if it will. Will free birth control be any easier to remember to take.

give them free long-term birth control- IUD, shots, implants

No medication is easy to remember to take... And women deserve the right to have options. IUD's can cause cramping, intense bleeding, and scarring. Depo can cause massive weight gain and depression. Pills have side effects too, but are generally less severe as depo. I personally, use a combination of the rhythm method, mucous inspection method (which sounds gross, I know), and condoms. And it works perfect for me!

I personally, use ... condoms. And it works perfect for me!

Let me guess: female?

You're trying to explain this to men apparently.. men who sound like they might be still pissed that women get to vote, and choose their own clothes..

If this had any effect, I would say go for it. In fact, go for it anyways- can't hurt. However, I don't think it will make a difference. The people pumping out babies out of wed-lock beginning at 13 obviously don't care. Look at the number of women with multiple kids, by multiple fathers. Fool me once...

It should be required if you are on welfare.

never known: I had an IUD for twenty+ years and had absolutely no problems with it at all. It's the greatest birth control device ever invented. You can go about your business with no worries, and no pills.

Women who have cramping, intense bleeding, whatever, will have that with or without an IUD. Some women have no problems with their menstrual cycles and others do.

Definately agree. Oops once, but twice, you shoulda known better(if you're already on welfare you obviously couldnt afford the first one)... i had a son super young, 8 years later he's still an only child, and i plan to keep it that way...thanks to birth control(dont kid yourself i still have sex)!! i was only on welfare until i graduated, but got on bc as soon as the dr said i could (6 wks after he was born) and haven't stopped. Regardless if i have to pay or not (which i have paid in the past) i will stay on birth control, because even now at 23, with a good job and stable relationship(7yrs), i dont need anymore kids.

Wow Benjamin...yeah we don't want poor people breeding, people down on their luck should be forced to take birth control, forced to eat only beans and bread, forced to take drug tests....what else have I heard...? And then we talk about our constitution and our rights as Americans and why our country is superior to other countries in the same breath.

My understanding of IUDs (disclaimer: man talking) is that a lot of the horror stories came about when they were first released. I read an article in the sex health column here at msnbc.com where they were talking to doctors that said IUDs are much safer now because of one thing: familiarity.

In the early days, supposedly, the doctors were completely new to this treatment and they had no idea how to properly insert the IUD in order to prevent the problems associated. Now that IUDs have become much more common, the incidence rate has reduced dramatically. Of course, since it is higher than bad side effects from the pill or other contraceptives, many doctors still refuse to place it in women who have not yet had a kid. Which is another issue to discuss.

Klm, you miss the point. If you are so destitute that you need the rest of the country to pay your way, you shouldn't have the right to have another kid. Or, cap benefit levels at what they are when they go onto public aid. To think that someone who can't afford their rent, food, etc. can go have another kid and get a larger check each month from the government, is criminal. If you take welfare, go on birth control.

You really think that people should be able to continue to have kids when they can't afford them, and be taken care of?

I had IUD for 1 year and had to have emergency hysterectomy. Free pills will not solve the problem of children. Some people cannot take pills due to blood clotting or other issues. If you look at other nations like India, Egypt or Africa, I believe they do not practice birth control at all. Does this mean that the taxpayers will be subsidizing the global populations? Could be very expensive. Just try calculating the $9.00 per month times 1 million and it really grows. Does not include the exams that you have to have on a annual basis to get prescription.

Frankie: no matter how you spin the math or find rare exceptions, you can't escape the fact that pills are cheaper than babies.

Frankie - Sorry for your problems, but most women are perfectly safe on birth control. As for the places you listed without birth control, they have a different type of population control- it's called starvation.

@never know

Thank you for takign some responsibility

People who are on welfare probably should not have any more kids. Which is why birth control should be free.

If you want to cap payments for any additional kids, just be aware of the consequences -- in NJ, one of the first states to have a family cap such that a mother will not get additional payments for any child conceived while she is drawing welfare, the abortion rate among poor women has gone way up. There is some debate about whether this is due to the cap, but it is certainly a remarkable coincidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/03/nyregion/births-fall-and-abortions-rise-under-new-jersey-family-cap.html?src=pm&gwh=169461E0C701EC52D8377EE9BA76DE16

People on welfare already have free birth control.

Welfare pays for the pill, IUDs, and condoms.

Mrs. Georgia Peach wrote "If it will keep baby Mamma's off of welfare, go for it. Much cheaper in the long run."

Only a male birth control pill will keep Momma's from getting pregnant for government benefits.

Vincent, I also believe we should really step up teaching sex education in schools, starting at very young ages. I am in my 60's and I am amazed at parents who want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend their kids will abstain. THEY WON'T. So give them birth control and give them education. Babies having babies is just wrong and I am all for education and birth control in schools.

ChiCity- Klm, you miss the point. If you are so destitute that you need the rest of the country to pay your way, you shouldn't have the right to have another kid. Or, cap benefit levels at what they are when they go onto public aid. To think that someone who can't afford their rent, food, etc. can go have another kid and get a larger check each month from the government, is criminal. If you take welfare, go on birth control.

You really think that people should be able to continue to have kids when they can't afford them, and be taken care of?

No where did I say that I believe people should have children they cannot afford. In fact I do not believe that in anyway, shape or form. I do not however believe the government or anyone else for that manner can morally mandate that people ( becaue of their economic satus or other condition) be forced to take birth control or be steriilized, that is sort of an ethical issue if you catch my drift. We encounter religious issues, health issues, and so forth, and I haven't even mentioned the F word- Freedom. This is the USA, not the Soviet Union.

No one should ever risk an unwanted pregnancy. No one should have children that cannot afford. But we should also remember what one can afford today and what might be able to afford in the future may be different, people need to think ahead and be realistic. People do not think realistically in terms of babies and children. Really when it comes down to it there are actually very few people in this country who can afford to have chilren. So who makes those decisions in a world where someone decides who can and can't? See thats the problem. So no, I don't think its a good idea to have kids you can't afford but I also don't think its a good idea to make BC mandatory to poor people or those on welfare. But it is a good idea to make BC free and easily accessable to those on welfare, it increases the likihood they will use it. Think Planned Parenthood.

Sex education is the key to good decisions. Cheap birth control is necessary.

Your premiums are ALREADY going for other people. That's the whole nature of how insurance works. Everyone puts in a "small bit" then they are covered for the "big bit" if needed. You shouldn't have to "factor it in".

NO ONE should be of two minds about this! Insurance companies can save money doing this -- thus (theoretically) saving the insured. In addition, it's not like OFFERING free birth control is FORCING free birth control. So if you have a religious or moral objection -- you don't have to take it.

As far as any religious aspect to premiums covering birth control -- premiums already cover blood transfusions and other procedures that some religions object to AND they already cover part of birth control. So that's a non issue.

@Beth, nothing was said regarding religion by Katy. People can choose not to use birth control for other reasons.

@Everyone (so there's no confusion... "you" doesn't refer to Beth): In any case, birth control can already by found for free from many clinics and parenting programs. Those aren't used because people don't want anyone to see them going there. It's all about self-image even though it shouldn't matter.

Giving these away for free from hospitals and regular doctors as well just helps promote more and more sex among unmarried couples. And regardless of any religious beliefs, that leads to abortions, babies with only one parent, babies being put up for adoption, and babies being neglected. I'd like to see everyone who supports the idea of "sex with anyone anytime as often as you want" to spend a month or two working with infants and children who are without parents, who are neglected/hurt, and who are in dangerous situations. It's an eye-opener. You have the right to live your life the way you want. But do you really want to bring about that much harm to children? Maybe you won't, but the lifestyle does. Promoting the lifestyle is promoting the situation these children are in. Promoting free birth control promotes this type of lifestyle. It's a circle that leads to harming children even if you are responsible enough to take care of any child you might create from your actions.

I'm not entirely against free birth control, but I'm not sure that it needs to be made available everywhere, which is what the insurance coverage would allow. If people want it free, then they should get over caring about what others think and just go get some free birth control from any of the clinics and parenting programs nearby that offer it for free. And I think that wherever you get it, you should also be given information on being smart in your sexual choices and being responsible when birth control fails. Just a thought.

The whole point of birth control is so that you DON'T get unwanted pregancies. Premarital sex is a non-issue if you're smart and take precautions.

RIAMUS: Were Republicans to get their way and defund Planned Parenthood, there' goes much of your "free" birth control.

More stunningly brilliant logic from the Right who cry out in rage against abortion and then in the next breadth would deny woman reproductive services. Stunning hypocrisy.

Riamus: I understand where you are coming from, however hormonal teenagers are going to have sex. They aren't going to abstain. It would be nice if they did. If giving away free birth control will help keep them from having babies, I gotta go with putting birth control pills out like candy.

@Riamus

That's funny.

And here I was thinking that most of those unwanted babies were being born to women NOT using birth control. /sarcasm

People are going to have sex. It's natural. Teen sex is even natural. You can't prevent it.

Right now, women have access to free birth control - you can always get free samples from your doctor, you can get free samples via a payment card through the drug companies, and you can get free or nearly free packs at a neighbourhood health clinic or Planned Parenthood.

What needs to be fixed is the stupidity.

Women who think they can't get pregnant the first time. Women who can't remember to take a pill at least every other day (the pills still work fine as long as you take two!) Women who believe their partner who says he is sterile. Men who believe their partner who says she is on birth control.

Sure, free birth control will help the extreme poor who can't afford to travel to a clinic. It might even help the extreme lazy who don't feel like finding a cheap way of getting birth control.

But nothing is going to prevent unwanted pregnancy except education.

I have to agree with ozzie on this one - the Right seems to be working very hard to limit women's reproductive options. I firmly support planned parenthood (because I think its one of the few hopes to help women in poor neighborhoods make better choices) but it may not matter in a few years, when even the supporters are unable to afford donations to them. Where will women go to for help with birth control then?

It's not that the Right has a problem with abortion or birth control per se - they (meaning the ignorant masses who vote for them, not the people on top who are only about money) have a problem with women enjoying and controlling their sex lives. They're terrified of women having any control over sex, so anything that frees them from worrying about unwanted childbirth is pubic enemy #1.

I don't use birth control and see no reason why my premiums should go up to pay for everybody else's

Because you would realize a great benefit from living in a society where every child is a wanted child, not a punishment for breaking someone's arbitrary standard of "morality."

I don't use birth control and see no reason why my premiums should go up to pay for everybody else's

The same reason I don't have kids, but pay a lot more for schools than a pack of pills..

@Riamus - I don't often disparage those who post here. I try more often than not to simply state a different opinioin so that it is easy to understand. I often do this with analogies and kindness, but in this case I just won't waste the time. You are an idiot.

First of all as stated previously the good republicans are taking away as much health and reproductive services for women as they possibly can. I am feeling all inclusive today; they are idiots too. And what is worse, they are doing this after years of their abstinence dogma which has ruined many young lives AND caused many young women to seek abortions, get HIV, cervical cancer, or bring a child into the world that they are unable to care for, because they had never been taught about responsible sexual practices, preventive measures and their own bodies.

Apparently you live in an insulated little world where you think unmarried people should not have sex. WAKE UP! Unmarried people have always had sex and always will. And for you to throw in your delusional rant about birthcontrol = more sex= more abandoned, abused and unloved babies is very nearly incomprehensable in a modern society. Birth control does not lead to MORE sex, it leads to less pregnancies and the spread of disease from the sex people are alreday having. And by the way, other people having sex is none of your business.

As for those people you talk about going/not going to family planning or free clinics (the one's being closed) it is mostly the poor who use these clinics and they are more stigmatized by their poverty than the thought that someone might see them there and judge for having sex. (um...that would be you, oh judgemental one). Everyone has sex, well, maybe except for you. There is no stigma attached any longer.

I worked at a family planning clinic for some time and it was funny to me how many affluent "ladies" slummed it over to the clinic to get their STD tests because they were in the same social circles as the doctors and nurses at the for profit clinics and hospitals and certainly didn't want word to get out that they had VD. So, you see, your assumption regarding the clinics has no merit.

Also this new recommendation applies mostly to private insurance, (you know, the ones that pay for Viagra and Cialis but not birth control) and since a huge chunk of Americans have no insurance and without a single payer plan never will you don't have to worry about free birthcontrol being everywhere, the poor will still be without and as long as we allow other idiots to write the laws I am sure it will only get worse. After all this was only a recommendation, so only has to be taken under advisement. Like the recommendation that cannabis was essentially harmless and should not be criminalized. We all know how that worked out.

Dave in NM.....the morality you speak of is not someones morality.....it's GODS morality. GOD put it in place for a reason......it works. It's the person who makes the decision to be imorral.....not GOD. Since I chose to be moral, I don't agree with anothers stupid choice and me have to pay for it. Dave....before you insult morality......look at it's reasoning.

@Riamus-

Um, last I checked kids could still have only one parent for a variety of reasons, not just because they were an unplanned pregnancy. One parent could have died or the parents could have been divorced.

K Tate

the morality you speak of is not someones morality.....it's GODS morality. GOD put it in place for a reason......it works. It's the person who makes the decision to be imorral.....not GOD. Since I chose to be moral, I don't agree with anothers stupid choice and me have to pay for it. Dave....before you insult morality......look at it's reasoning.

And what about the unwanted children in foster care and welfare? All those poor, unwanted babies that did not ask to be born . . . what of them? They are the result of "anothers stupid choice". So do you want to pay for them? Are you willing to pay for them?

Do you want to continue to help pay for all the unwanted children who are innocent, and did not ask to be born?

Dave in NM.....the morality you speak of is not someones morality.....it's GODS morality.

And it is just as much your right to hold that opinion as it is mine to hold a contrary one.

Since I chose to be moral, I don't agree with [another's] stupid choice and me have to pay for it. Dave....before you insult morality......look at [its] reasoning.

Perhaps you could explain your concept of "morality." See, I was raised to see morality as an issue of causing harm. Doing something that hurts someone is immoral. Doing something that helps someone is moral. Doing something that helps oneself and doesn't affect anyone else is morally neutral. Do you divorce morality from help and harm, or can you tell me how having sex for pleasure hurts someone?

(I think the fact that your discourse about morality comes around to what you don't want to spend money on gives me part of my answer. Jesus was all about the Benjamins, after all, right?)

K Tate,

Not even God nor Ayn Rand could keep their own objectivist morality consistent.

Morality is determined by a social contract, not by an imaginary sky god.

After all, God still thinks slavery, making rape victims marry their rapists, and killing adulterers is moral.

Yep.....and Christ is still lord. Morality is still working since the beginning of time. Try it sometime. It works.

Morality is still working since the beginning of time. Try it sometime. It works.

So, then, K Tate: it's been an hour. Are you working on your explanation of what "morality" is, as per my question? Seems if you're so intent on people practicing it, the least you could do is answer our questions about it.

You know, if you replace the words "god" and "christ" in the spewings of people like K Tate, everyone would admit the writer was crazy.

Why do christians get a pass at psychosis?

After all, after about age 5, having an imaginary friend is usually grounds for commitment.

What are you wearing K Tate? It better be 100% otherwise the morality you say (incorrectly) is still working since the beginning of time states that I have to kill you.

Try it sometime. It works.

How would you know?

I'm not sure why some people got the feeling I'm against birth control. I'm not. I'm all for it and totally against people having 10 children especially if they don't want them and/or can't afford them. My comment wasn't even really just about birth control. It's more about the fact that health insurance can't cover every single health-related expense a person has and I'm just not sure birth control is one of te expenses it should cover. But, like I said, I'm of two minds about it.

@Beth, nothing was said regarding religion by Katy. People can choose not to use birth control for other reasons.

@Riamus -- I never said she DID say anything regarding religion. I was simply expounding on my point as to why there should be NO objections to this.

'm not sure why some people got the feeling I'm against birth control. I'm not. I'm all for it and totally against people having 10 children especially if they don't want them and/or can't afford them. My comment wasn't even really just about birth control.

@ Katie -- Actually, your comment was about everyone having to live with YOUR version of morality ... or you don't want to pay for it (see below). Well, guess what? If you have insurance, people ARE living with YOUR version of morality because they are paying for YOU! That's how insurance works.

Since I chose to be moral, I don't agree with anothers stupid choice and me have to pay for it. Dave....before you insult morality......look at it's reasoning.

My comment had Absolutely Nothing to do with morality. I have never said there is anything wrong with birth control. I think birth control is a great idea. All I said was I don't know if insurance needs to cover it 100%. All I am saying is that insurance is to insure against the unexpected. In fact in my original post, you'll recall I said I was of two minds. I see the possibility of providing free birth control with lesser costs since there won't be the resulting pregnancy. However, I stand by my belief that insurance is meant to pay for the big unforeseeable expenses of cancer or whatnot and not your day to day prescriptions. Apparently my mistake was my offhand mention of the fact that I don't use birth control. I don't use it because I don't need it. End of story. Also, I don't see how my morality is causing anyone any extra insurance premiums. I have a $1500 deductible that I have NEVER met.

Katy

Your comment did not.

However, use @K Tate's comment did.

Some people have confused the two of you.

If you had read this entire comment thread, you would have seen the problem.

Actually I did read the entire thread, but didn't make the connection that people were confusing us. I guess I should have, but you tend to never confuse yourself for other people:)

Apologies to Katy M -- I did get mixed up. I should know better too, because I often get mixed up with other Beths.

Gwen-3645721 wrote "I have to agree with ozzie on this one - the Right seems to be working very hard to limit women's reproductive options"

Why don't women have the same options as men : keep your zipper closed?
That is the standard response given to men contributing to a pregnancy while having zero legal rights in the matter.

Why does anyone with our technology and knowledge in 2011 have to be punished for something as natural as sex? Reform education, actually teach sex education, and keep sexual health options open. It's SIMPLE.

Why does no one look at the bigger picture here? It's all about sex, sex, sex. Hi, I'm a 20 year old girl and I am on BIRTH CONTROL. Can I let you in on a secret though? I DON'T use it for sex! Before I went on birth control, my periods were awfully debilitating on my body. I was very heavy, irregular, and when I had my period, some days I could not even get out of bed. My doctor recommended that I go on birth control. Everything got better, and I wasn't confined to my bed every month. This argument is absolutely absurd. Women do not required to take it. If it is your personal belief that birth control is wrong, then don't take it. But don't argue that my right to have a functional life should be taken away because you don't believe its "moral". I am so tired of people preaching about abstience and this taboo that birth control means your having sex all the time. It isn't just about sex, its about my right to live a functional life, just like all of you.

That's complicated Kristen and actually more an apple and oranges argument..

They are talking about b/c for contraceptive. What you are talking about is a medication for an illness. So.. your situation is more like a diabetic needing insulin or someone with high blood pressure needing blood thinners. Your stance then would correlate to those people also receiving those meds for free...

Kristen's isn't an apple and oranges argument. Birth Control, whether for contraceptive OR for medical issues, is not covered by insurance.

Funny, my wife's birth control was covered by insurance.

Most states require that insurance companies that serve clients in their state provide coverage for birth control if the insurance has a drug plan.

Most people know little about how their insurance works, and their pills are covered but the people don't realize it (due to a high copay, for example) or people are asking for brand-named birth control which is covered at a higher rate (sometimes so high that you are basically paying full price), or sometimes the insurance company just requires a note from your doctor.

When I left retail pharmacy about 8 years ago, all of the insurance plans that we took (which was almost all of them out there) covered birth control and my state had not yet even implemented the law requiring the insurance companies to do so.

The only exceptions to this are insurances that are self-funded by entities such as the Catholic Church.

cgyne- perhaps not covered for free, but it's most likely covered.

If you went to the Dr because you had a physical abnormality you were born with and wanted surgery, they'd say it was cosmetic. If you had an accident (or disease) and the result was the same abnormality, it would be called re-constructive. Don't get mad at me dude, take it up with the semantics police.

Some medications are rejected for coverage because it's ORIGINAL purpose was for one thing, but the side affects treat something else. Say- Viagra. Since it was created for a dude, it's not allowed to be diagnosed to a woman for a completely legit purpose.

So.. either way- doesn't matter, does it?

Actually Viagra is prescribed to women. Something similar to Viagra (and even Viagra) has been used in premature babies as well

The idea is that it will increase blood flow to the genital area, which could help with women who have trouble orgasming.

However, most women do not refill their prescriptions.

Realistically, most women's sexual performance problems are either due to something like menopausal vaginal dryness, or due to a psychological hang up, not a physical problem.

Right Cass, I didn't say it wasn't prescribed, but that it wasn't covered. I let my words get lax in my examplein that I meant cost covered- the insurance company will reject it. At least, as late as 2009 and probably depends on the insurance of course. Dr can prescribe you anything they want, but doesn't mean the insurance company will recognize it.

:) I so wasn't going with the sex scenario. Not female sexual issues, but rather- hypertension...

They only reject it as a caution.

Just like they reject birth control pills for men.

However, when the pharmacist calls the claims processor, all he/she has to say is that they recognize that the drug is being prescribed for the "wrong" sex but that it was verified by the doctor (or if the pharmacist knows the diagnosis already, no call to the doc is needed).

So, the drugs are covered. It just requires an authorization the first time.

Or not. I'm not really going to argue this. :) There isn't a point. If an insurance co. can try and go after property insurances for accidents, claim things are pre-existing when they're diagnostics and all the other, I am going to believe, based on the insurance companies that I actually work with, that it can be possible that they can and do, turn sh1t down.

And really, there is nothing that will come from the who's "righter" discussion going on here.

I'm just stating what actually happens on the ground in a retail pharmacy. Coming from a PharmD, that constitutes a fact.

Oh ok, you're righter... ;) Now go ahead and celebrate, or whatever will make you feel good.

Read that article today about a patient being denied breast cancer treatment coverage because he is a male..

My point was like this situation- the insurance companies that deny these things for these reasons.

Keep

You should work a bit on your reading comprehension skills.

The man in the breast cancer article had no insurance.

He had no coverage through work, and he did not qualify for Medicaid.

Someone suggested he apply for help through a program that was set up to help women with breast cancer issues.

The program legally could not provide money to him.

So, the situation is his own doing as he did not purchase insurance for himself and was just hoping he wouldn't get sick.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44065422/ns/health-mens_health/

Whatever dude. You just think of me when you hear more stories such as this. You can split hairs if you want, but I've heard of the viagra example via the claims people who deny them. I've heard of the female, insured patients who have been denied coverage for bogus reasons, much like this guys' situation. If it makes you feel better to think only your personal experience represents what's going on everywhere, stay naive. I care not. :)

Split hairs? You made an argument, provided an example as proof of your argument, and were ultimately proven wrong. That isn't splitting hairs. Nor is the "I've heard stories" argument. Then you call him naive. I actually read his response to you, and laughed at my desk, hoping you would have the chutzpah to respond again. You didn't disappoint.

My example was just an example again of how people get shot down for all sorts of reasons Chi. It had nothing to do with the guy's insurance status, but the whole subject of gender coming up.

"My point was like this situation- the insurance companies that deny these things for these reasons"

If you can't comprehend that, well, I can't help you and don't care to.

Cass hasn't proven ANYTHING. All Cass said was that they were a pharmacist and I doesn't agree. How is that proof? I said, people get turned down for this for this reason and Cass saying- no, can't be true. I'm a pharmacist. You both could use a little help if you think that someone saying words is all it takes. Hence why I said that I wasn't going to argue about who was righter- NO PROOF COULD BE PROVIDED BY EITHER. My saying "stories"- well, it's at work. So, they're work discussions within the insurance world- events, situations, claims- wtf ever you want to call them. Not being a certified pill dispenser who's just never had it happen while they were dispensing pills. So- neither of us has "proof". Sit at your desk and laugh, again, I care not. You haven't offered anything of value, so why start now?

Just think of me when it happens to you. :)

Ouch. What a "sentence" "All Cass said was that they were a pharmacist and I doesn't agree."

I don't really care who believes me or not. However, I've never seen someone denied a claim for something that according to their insurance company should be covered.

I've seen lots of people get an auto-deny back (the process is described in your insurance materials) which was simple to fix with a phone call.

I've seen lots of people scream that something was not covered by their insurance when it was (higher copay, deductible).

I've seen lots of people who still think they have to file their own insurance claims instead of giving the pharmacy, hospital, dentist, etc. their insurance card for auto-processing.

All of these people were wrong.

The fact remains that if you read a bit into your insurance policy, you can play along with its rules. You can have your doctor write prescriptions for formulary drugs. You can understand your own copay tiers so you will know whether or not you can afford the medication when you are still at the doctor's office.

You not knowing how your insurance works doesn't make your insurance company evil. If you choose to remain ignorant about your insurance, then you will generally end up paying more for your health services.

Most people get their insurance through their or their spouse's employer. That employer is the group that is making the decisions on what procedures or products are covered by the insurance - either because a small employer has chosen an existing plan or because (as most companies do) a larger employer is "self-insured" and chooses every nuance of the plan - the insurance processor (Aetna, Blue Cross, United Healthcare, etc) just process the claims.

So, none of these "the insurance company denied me" type statements are valid (unless you are on Medicaid, and, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for).

If you have a problem with your health services coverage, then you should address those concerns to your HR department, as they are the ones with the power to either choose a plan that covers your needed services or integrate the appropriate coverage into a self-funded plan.

The only things the insurance companies are doing are using their actuaries to determine pricing on the non-self funded plans. Then again, very few people are paying full for their insurance premiums - most companies cover those at about 70/30 with the company covering the larger portion.

So, if you keep finding yourself thinking that the insurance companies are screwing you, first, read your policy. Secondly, talk with your HR department. Between those two actions, you will have all the information you need to get coverage for anything (unless you have a Catholic self-funded plan and you want birth control pills for birth control reasons).

Sorry. I just can't read that. Sometimes typos happen and that was the first thing you had to point out, so I am going to assume the rest of it isn't much better.

I lied- I noticed the HR word in your last paragraph. I'm HR and I know how policies work. These are not my issues.

Good day.

My last employer had employer paid health care...not a horrible plan, but not great either! I think it sucks that my employer paid $648 a month for coverage that would not even pay for one annual physical per year!! WTF is wrong with insurance companies????? I guess they would rather wait and get a 20K emergency hospital bill for a sudden heart attack vs. $300 for a physical and lab work to determine that one may have a BP problem, cholesterol problem or the like and get it under control or taken care of before something bad happens. My other gripe with most insurance companies is pre approval crap....if one is sitting in the ER in extreme pain and the Dr needs a CT scan to see what the hell is going on inside ones body... who the hell are a bunch of pencil pushers to say nope...we will not cover that...OMFG!!!!! Almost all insurance companies do these things, so it is not a matter of choosing a policy good for you...it is matter of insurance companies using a little more common sense in many areas!!

Actually Viagra was created for people with lung disease and in the testing found out that in higher doses it made men "stand tall" so it was marketed for that reason. It is still used in patients with lung problems but at a smaller dose.

Viagra was a blood pressure medication (pulmonary hypertension is a blood pressure issue, not a lung disease).

Birth control already is covered by insurance. That fight happened about 10 years ago.

But, people can't figure out the difference between when a drug is covered by insurance vs. when they have to pay a copay.

Nearly every insurance company requires you to pay a copay for birth control pills, just like you pay a copay for Viagra. Both medications are still covered by insurance.

The point of this article is to say that birth control should be made available at no copayment.

Up until 10 years ago, you can blame your friends the Feminists, Catholics, and Evangelical Christians for why birth control was not covered. An odd group?

Feminists fought for decades to say that pregnancy was a normal part of being a human female. That women should not be fired due to pregnancy. Women should not be paid less because of pregnancy.

Well, insurance companies got on the bandwagon and said, well, if pregnancy is a normal part of being human, then we shouldn't cover things such as birth control pills, which prevent being normal, and we shouldn't cover maternity leave, since being pregnant is normal.

Then the conservative christians got on board and agreed - yeah! you shouldn't cover birth control! Being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen is where we want our wives!

So, up until Viagra came out, very few insurance companies would pay for birth control pills (or any other method of birth control).

Technically, the insurance companies were right according to the feminists, the same people pissed off about the birth control non-payments, - ED is a sickness, while pregnancy is not.

But, eventually, all the insurance companies were forced to cover birth control pills at the same copay as other medications.

ED treatments are essentially coverd becasue of the AARP lobby. BTW, the littel blue pill is the CHEAP "solution"

http://www.northcoastmed.com/impotence.htm

Some of these "solutions" that used to be seen for $30 in the back of magazines now go for in excess of $500, thanks medicare...

Pregnancy might not be a sickness, but people forget all the time, the pill and other sources of birth control are also used like Viagra for other reasons. I am on birth control to regulate my period, not just to prevent pregnancy. If i wasn't on birth control i would get my monthly surprise every 6 weeks instead of every 28 days. The cramps are 10 times worse, with a period that comes so late, i can't function enough go to work because im in so much pain. I have a friend, and if she does get monthly shots (which is a form of birth control) to slow done her bleeding she becomes anemic.

so again why shouldn't birth control be covered by insurance?... it should

Female guest wrote "If insurance companies can easily cover the expense of Viagra and other drugs for ED, then certainly they can cover the result of that medication - a potential pregnancy. "

Nonsense. Viagra is a treatment for erectile dysfunction, and quite likely, circumcision. Insurance companies have tons of medications and hormone therapies for women. Covering only female birth control chemicals merely increases the cost for men while increasing the benefits for women.

oh my god seriously... "increases the cost for men while increasing the benefits for women." seriously another man only thinking about themselves. What about your mother who carried you for 9 months, god men only think about themselves. We did not ask to have breasts or to bleed every 28 days. God!!!! Men just don't get it, they have no idea what it's like to be a woman. I remember when i found out my insurance didn't cover my GYN visit, i was so p*ssed, I don't choose to go there i have too, men can walk into a regular physician, and it a simple bend over and cough and your sent on your way. It not that simple for women, if a couple wants to have a baby, the GYN visits are required if you want a healthy baby. Gees its not just birth control these insurance companies aren't covering. Men and Women will never be equal, just because of the simple fact that women bleed every 28 days and men don't, we carry a child for 9 months you dont!!!!!!!!

oh and another thing it takes two to have sex, so men are benefiting from it too. actually most men that i know don't pay for their girls birth control, so we are paying for something that also benefits you too at not cost to you.

No unfortunately the idiot population feels they need to breed like rabbits, with no responsibility to their offspring other than to indocrinate them into their own narrow ideological beliefs. Sensible people, even those of poor means, know the value and importance of birth control and realize that they can provide a better life to fewer children.

Part of the new healthcare bill is that insurance companies will be REQUIRED to pay out 85% of their premiums in actual healthcare expenditures for enrollees. I bet that would help pay for the cost of the OCPs.

I'm not sure that it would be a higher rate. I suspect it might add up to a LOWER rate.

Because only college graduates should pre-create? I've met alot of idiot college grads btw.. (I work in HR, so yes, it's not just a guess)

Also keep in mind that many of those women, might, just maybe, seek assistance because the father of the child is a deadbeat.

You know, in my state, I have to prove that I am financially responsible and knowledgeable enough to own and drive a car. I have to have insurance for the financial aspect, and I have to pass a driving test for the knowledge aspect.

I would like to see the same happen for having children. I would think that society should value children over their cars.

Unfortunately, any time you try to prevent people from having children, someone cries "Eugenics!".

Hopefully, someday someone will invent a side effect-free, long-term, reversible birth control method we can pop into every 10 year old.

One problem Cass is that it will be abused. For one, rich people will always get what they want.

For another thing, what happens when a person was wealthy enough to have a child one year, then becomes destitute the next? Will you euthanize said child?

As for long term b/c, there are plenty of options. GETTING YOUR F'N MAN TUBES TIED WORKS. And is reversible. Same for a woman's. However, did you know that there is an increase in erectile dysfunction linked to circumcisions? Wouldn't you like to have the choice about what SURGERIES you get? Or do you think that Nazi Germany was a happy place?

What exactly is the magic figure we're shooting for? Is it a million bucks? 50k? I mean, what exactly should the GOVERNMENT DICTATE (you can move to one of those countries if you'd like) be the acceptable income to pro-create?

Then, we have inbreeding. If only the top 1% of income earners are allowed to spawn, we will eventually run in to children with 2 heads and scales.

Back to the drawing board dude.

I don't think semcrae meant that only college graduates should procreate. (Notice I spelled it correctly? Must be the college degree.) There are idiots in every segment of the population who aren't responsible enough to be parents. No race, socioeconomic group , or ethnic group has the rights to stupidity and ignorance. I agree that there is a frightening amount of people having children that can't support themselves, and that it will be the downfall of our country. A vast majority of the population in the US is supported by the earnings and taxes of the few who actually work and teach their children that they will have to work to get what they want and need to live. That is what made our country strong in the past. If you can't figure out how to take care of yourself, how can you teach your children to take care of themselves? I wanted to stay home with my children until they went to school. I had to work to provide health insurance for my family. I had a responsibility to provide for my children and I did. Don't have kids until you can provide for them.

Keep-it-cool, you need to chill dude. It wouldn't need to be abused. A very basic means test could be implemented before having a kid (say a minimum wage job and some source for childcare). To knock that is really stupid. And it would never be retroactive, that's just silly.

And I'd expect most people who want to have a kid would be able to do so (not the 1% you refer to). So inbreeding wouldn't be an issue. No, such a system if technologically available would basically cut down the cronic baby mills and teen pregnancies and not effect others (maybe less 4th child opps babies too).

Define "entitlement" programs. If you are a Republican, bear in mind that "entitlement" programs include Social Security, Medicare, Pell Grants, ADA provisions, etc. Welfare programs cost very little money--certainly not trillions--so the only way Republicans are getting that figure is by adding in these little things that sort of go to middle class and working class people.

If you aren't in the top 5% income level, then anything that the government gives you (back) is an "entitlement." Well, according to the mentality of those like the Koch brothers. Just imagine the top 5% as the monarchy and the rest of us as peasants--what the monarchy gets is what they have "paid for." What the rest of us get are "entitlements."

But, yes, it's a lot cheaper to pay for birth control than unwanted pregnancies, not to mention the fact that children who result from those pregnancies don't tend to be wanted, well-parented, or turn out particularly well. The decrease in crime since 1970s has been tied by many to the decreased number of unwanted children.

However, if it is cheaper to provide birth control (particularly long-term birth control which doesn't depend on poorly educated women remembering to use it properly), how much cheaper would it be if we provided adequate sex education? Making sure that only wanted babies are conceived is a great idea.

Quick comment Keep-it-cool - getting a womans tubes tied is NOT reversible. Thats why many women who have no children have such a hard time finding a doctor who will tie their tubes - docs don't want to be sued if the woman changes her mind and wants a kid later.

Gwen,

Tubal ligation is definitely reversible, with a high success rate. Heck, most of the time they only put a clip on the tube anyway.

Even mother nature sometimes "reverses" the surgery herself.

All it takes is another surgery.

The difficulty in finding a doctor, especially for young women or women without children, comes down to the patronizing male establishment thinking they know more about what a woman wants to do with her body than the woman does.

"Oh honey, we can't tie your tubes! You might want kids someday!"

If its reversible, why would any doctor have a problem with it?

Heh, though you're right - I just found a description of how its reversed and how succesful reversals are. >_< Pardon my dumb!

Sorry, my typing speed at times leads to a typo here and there, Pam. But good for you! You paid someone to teach you how to use spell check.. Money well spent sweetcheeks. Anyhoodle.. my point to that poster is that it is stupid to generalize and a) believe the an "education" makes a fit parent and b) this is only for the ladies, because it's only a lady problem. But let me give you another round of applause for being my unpaid editor and catching that extremely grievous error..

I'm chill as chill can be E. But I have to ask you.. do you REALLY think minimum wage job is gonna do it? lol Seriously??!! You realize, they will STILL receive food stamps at a minimum? Also, they will continue to qualify for medical coverage most likely.. so.. that really doesn't do much to change things right? Certainly wouldn't fit Sem's ideal world.

Gwen, research that.

I don't think I really put an opinion on if there should be a co-pay or not on any of my posts. I pay my co-pay. However, my posts are more targeting those who think this is all about welfare baby mamas without education and some stupid ass quips about sterilizing the general populace.

You should watch the movie "Idiocracy". It is a fairly frightening vision of the future of our society.

It may be reversible sometimes but its not 100% and thats not a great gamble. And as I linked above there are too many side effects with tubals. I speak from personal experience, and know others with similar issues. I would never advise anyone to risk a tubal. Though the freedom from pregnancy worries are great , the other issues aren't worth it.

Vasectomy is a better option and so is regular old birth control.

Um.. so? Nothing is guaranteed klm. There are peole who just aren't able to get pregnant.

You also have the option of invitro. You have options and it's YOUR choice to untie or tie. No one is forcing it on you either.

Absolutely true but there was also a little conversation going on about forced sterilization That wouldn't exactly be optional, now would it? Sweetcheeks.

No and if you read what I had written in that convo, sugartits, then you'd also see that it's not all about your little story either.

Glad you're breeding. So happy about that.

I'm not sugartits, I'm well past breeding. Try not resorting to insults.

And I'm not sweetcheeks. Try practicing what you preach.

I vote cover birth control for free and cover birth after a $500 copayment. This will discourage reckless procreation. It's not about what's more valuable but the financial crisis our healthcare system is in.

$500 copay or even $1000 copay is fine with me. A birth without complications these days averages $20,000. That's a lot of money if you don't have good insurance.

Riamus,

All insurance companies (except for self-insured Catholic plans) cover birth control NOW.

People just pay a copay.

This article is talking about eliminating the copay.

It doesn't matter what you charge or don't charge for births. It still won't prevent people from procreating. They just won't pay the bill, it'll go to collections and ruin their credit and then what? Nothing.

My insurance will not cover birth unless it's something like an emergency c-section or anything similarly catastrophic. If I end up getting pre-eclampsia or gestational diabetes and have to go to the hospital in a non-emergency, I'm up a creek. I have enough money to cover it, it's just money I would prefer not to spend if I don't need to. We were careful to budget for this before the pregnancy.

I'm using a midwife and birthing center for my pregnancy. It only costs about $3,000 and I am praying to God that nothing crops up that'll make me high-risk.

I would file that under "being prepared".

If I knew there was a chance that I would get pregnant (especially if I knew I would not abort an unintended pregnancy), I would certainly make sure that I knew I had insurance coverage for the birth.

"Praying to God" is really not good financial planning.

Does your insurance at least cover healthy visits for the child?

The Catholic Church, or conservative evangelicals, may oppose this initiative? TFB. Christian Shariah is not all that different from Islamic Shariah.

For most people, when a drug goes from prescription to OTC status, their costs increase.

For example, I could get prescription Claritin for $10 a month. Now, even if I buy generic, it would cost at least $30.

Most insurance companies stop paying for drugs that go OTC.

Besides, birth control availability is not the problem. It is stupidity that is the problem.

My friend's daughter convinced her boyfriend she was taking birth control pills. Somehow, within a 2 year span, she had two miscarriages. Conveniently, right after the guy started talking about moving to HI, she managed to get pregnant and is due in a month.

For sheer stupidity, and not for lack of birth control, two lives are ruined.

Even if someone is not malicious, they can still be stupid enough to not take the pills, to not pay attention when taking antibiotics, not recognize that gaining significant weight has an effect, etc.

Birth control is 99% effective. It really can be. I've been using the Pill for over 15 years, and *magically* I haven't gotten pregnant yet.

The vast majority of people you hear about who were "on the pill" and yet still got pregnant were doing something wrong. Perhaps they were ignorant of what they were doing wrong, but that is still their fault.

That 1% of people for whom the pill does not work generally have liver issues and should not be taking it anyway.

Learn about natural methods of birth control (and I'm not talking about the rhythm method-users of the rhythm method are called parents). Get educated. Learn about your body and then you won't need hormonal birth control.

Or refuse to pay for the third kid. Which would be harsh, but it's a great deterrent.

That is harsh, but I have to say that I agree. If you choose to live your life on welfare and rely on gov't support, the gov't (us taxpayers) should not have to support your habits of reckless pro-creation/drug abuse, etc. If you can't afford to take care of yourself or even yourself and one child you should not be supported in your decisions to have more and more children (what sort of life are you offering them?). Gov't cheese after a thorough drug test is all that should be offered long term - the disabled I feel for - but too many people are just insanely lazy. They won't better themselves because they don't have to. I read an article and I do not recall who to credit it to but I belief the gist of the author's message was something like "the government should provide a safety net, NOT a hammack"..enough said!

Or the government could subsidize childcare and education and make that education a requirment of receiving "welfare". You know, like they do in other industrialized nations. That way everyone wins.

People--you cannot "live your life on welfare." There is a limit to the amount of time you can be on welfare. There is a 60-month limit in most states on the sort of welfare programs that are "full support." This has been the case for almost 20 years--please pay attention.

There are some subsidy programs (such as reduced-cost housing and WIC and so forth) which don't have as strict a limit--but there are no "welfare moms" living on welfare their entire lives.

The only people on permanent assistance either have health problems or mental retardation or something like that. One has to be on disability before payments become more or less permanent.

The average woman on welfare is white, has 1 or 2 children, is on it for less than a year, and is on welfare because she is getting divorced and has not yet been able to secure housing, a job, and daycare. The idea that there are women--and particularly people think they are black women--living their lives kicking out child after child so that they never have to work is a fantasy.

Why precisely do you want to "sterilize" a woman simply because she is getting a divorce--and particularly when the husband has tied the money up so that she has to get welfare money (which, by the way, she and her husband probably paid INTO) temporarily? What has such a woman done to harm you, exactly?

Okay--so let's say that we "sterilize" all the males who are going through divorces and whose former wife is temporarily receiving assistance? Can we do that too? How about the wives of service members who qualify for WIC because the military pays too little for the family to be above the poverty line--should we sterilize all of them, too? How well do you think that's going to go over?

Birth rates are declining across the industrialized world anyway. And the notion that we should have more children to support more elderly? Well, WHO would be having these children? The wealthy already have access to birth control, so they wouldn't be having more. So we should have more poor children to help fund social security...?

Children born into the welfare system are not very likely to become contributors to Social Security anyway (unless SS is taken out of welfare checks? I don't know).

Even if they get a job, they are not very likely to be making much money.

Cass,

What do you know about welfare cases???? Are you some rich Bitch born with a golden spoon in your mouth???? I was not a welfare baby, and I worked hard all my life and support my 2 children alone...with out help of welfare!!!!!!!!!! and now I am disabled and cant collect SS due to lacking 3 credits, so you I guess will collect my SS that I worked so hard for and can't collect... and can't get SSI because hubby makes too much money...

If I were you I would watch what I say, because if you ever walked in anyone's shoes???? You just might someday!!!!! And Lord help you then

with the government Welfare!!!!!!!

Texan - What are you going on at Cass for, exactly? She (and I, incidentally) were just saying that birth control is most beneficial to the poor who often don't pay net into the system as a whole. Thus trying to increase birthrates in the lowest tier is unlikely to help the underfunded SS system. There was no mention of worthiness of those getting SS or even those getting welfare in her post? Pragmatically, people tend to stay in or near the socioeconomic class into which they were born o.0

Yeah, Texan - wtf?

If you aren't on welfare, I don't see where you have a leg to stand on in this argument.

In regards to what I know about welfare - I spent 12 years in a retail pharmacy watching people come in with their "cards" that listed 8 different children with 8 different last names.

I worked there long enough to see some of these same children then come in when they were 14 or 15 with their own "cards" with babies of their own, and no father in sight.

You don't get a "card" (this is the Medicaid card - at the time it was just a computer print out) if you have a job that pays enough to support a child - that is just a fact (with the exception of people who had disabled children).

So, I am sorry that the entire concept of economics is out of your grasp.

CONSERVATIVE: Wrong, more of your rabid Reich Wing stupidity, which not only never stops but becomes increasingly narrow minded and inane.

You'll be the first one to bitch about all the "Welfare Queens" with 14 kids.

Oh yes, heavens forbid the "conservatives" expect the "Welfare Queen" to make changes to her own behaviour, rather than changing the entire government to accommodate her.

It is called personal responsibility.

But when personal responsibility fails-we all pay. I do not see this as accomodating her-but lessening the cost we all have to pay for a child on welfare.

@conservative, what's wrong with free birth control? it saves money and prevents unwanted pregnancies? this is a no-brainer

Ozzie: You'd think that birth control was so outrageously expensive that only "the rich" rich could afford it.

I'm sure you'd call it a hardship if that welfare queen had to go shell out a few bucks for a box of condoms wouldn't you?? Not to mention the welfare king who is going to knock her up and then leave. And God forbid that the couple forego having sex until they can take care of that little detail. Oh heaven forbid, you can't ask or expect ANY personal responsibility from the entitlement class!!!

Hey, maybe between them they could scratch up enough for the condoms. Of course that might mean a smaller bottle of malt liquor....oh the sacrifices of the poor!!

I'm sure if the government said, "hey, we also need to provide them with home delivery, since it might be too much trouble to for them to go out to the drug store to get them"...you'd support that too...along with the delivery of the malt liquor while they're at it wouldn't you??

Why do liberals insist on being such pathetic, helpless creatures who have to have the damn government give them everything. Makes me wanna vomit.

Again, asking someone to take care of their own damn birth control is not an outrageous expense. Stop acting as if it is.

If they would put down their iPhones, stop getting their nails done, stop drinking 3 44oz sodas a day, and stop smoking, then they could afford the $4 for the generic birth control pills at Wal-Mart;-)

GasD....ppppffffttttt, you obviously have no compassion for that class of people who think everything should just be given to them. Have you no shame???

@GasD, I'd gladly pay that $4 a day as long as your hypothetical woman took the pills, better yet, I'd pay for an IUD so she doesn't have to put down her iPhone. It is wayyy cheaper than to pay for her squeezing out a few kids she won't want and won't take care of. One way or another, we as a society, will pay for all of those kids. All I keep hearing from the right is 'personal responsibility' and that is exactly the point. This is for people who have no personal responsibility...yet one way or another, we as a society pay for their choices. I don't want to pay for their kids. You on the right say I don't want to pay for their kids, but don't want to stop them from having kids either.....you have to choose one or the other, their is no third choice...if everyone was personally responsible for all of their choices this wouldn't be an issue!

MSTAZZ: Agreed. Let's hope it's not too far off.

All insurance companies, other than Catholic funded plans, cover birth control now.

This article is talking about eliminating the copay.

You have those really single minded women haters on here who think that every child born to a woman is at the woman's own doing. The man wasn't even there. They also conveniently forget that there are a lot of deadbeat fathers out there. And if they are REALLY, REALLY bitching, most likely, they are the deadbeat who is being FORCED to pay for their own offspring. Those are the funniest! They take on this victim mentality that some woman raped them and had the nerve to get pregnant too!

I also agree. I have a child, but cannot afford another one right now. We use condoms because they are cheaper and well the pill just makes me crazy! We always hear about the welfare/single women but there are a lot of us out there who are married and trying not to be prego all the time. What about the 50 yr old married woman who is, in her opinion, to old to have a child but still has her monthly cycle? She's on the pill because she CAN STILL GET PREGNANT. People need to think outside the Welfare box!

@Keep it Cool-

You're right. Why is this always the woman's fault? It takes 2 to make a baby.

@Mstazz

You're right, too. It's not just about welfare people. I was on birth control for 10 years before I decided to have children. I wasn't in a financially responsible place at the time and I'm glad I didn't have kids back then.

Or the married couple who thought they were done having babies, then having a "whoops" on #4?

75 cents at a truck stop bathroom will do the same thing. Tell the guy to use it. Even if you are on the pill it isn't 100%. Close but there is always a chance. Or hell, do like a lot of women do after the "mother" need has been filled. Just stop. : }

Not every insurance covers it in their plans though. I have the only plan my work can afford (the cheapest possible) and I have to pay full cost for mine. And they notified me a while back that even once these full covered preventatives kick in I will still be screwed...because they consider me a "grandfathered" plan so they don't have to add any improvements for me.

Another thing that is always forgot in these debates is those of us who take birth control pills for a medical reason. I have PCOS and must take monophasic birth control pills to control the symptoms, regulate my cycle, preserve my fertility and help prevent long term complications like diabetes. Not all of us who take this are trying to prevent pregnancy...some of us are trying to preserve our fertility.

mstazz67 wrote "What about the married woman that doesn't want kids yet? It is about time insurance companies pay for birth control"

Most think that insurance is just free stuff. Insurance is risk and cost distributed over a group of people over time.

All companies, except privately funded plans (usually Catholic), cover birth control pills now.

Obviously, this article would rather inflame people into thinking they don't.

Note, however, that the title says "Cover birth control for free" and not "Cover birth control".

Drug companies already cover slews of drugs for women during menopause. I don't see how erectile dysfunction (the inability to maintain an erection is effective sterility) can be compared to pregnancy (fertility). Though, I read that comparison from many female posters.

I'd like to see different insurance rates by sex according to cost. Women cost more in just about everything.

My insurance (Blue Cross of Tennessee) doesn't cover drugs for ED.....I mean, er, um, uhh, not that I would have any use for that kind of thing you understand. Uuuummm, I just happen to know because I read it on page 38 in the fine print. Gotta be sure you read those policies carefully ya know!!

Have to run, I've gotta a bridge for sale on ebay that I need to check on.

I see..

Look, I agree, there need to be less kids, it's killing our resources.

BUT, do you REALLY want the government to MANDATE what you put in to your body?

Oh and for @!$%#s sake, they can't balance a budget, how the hell will the government fit THIS in? I mean, and keep the tax cuts for the rich too...

Why is it that all of the people who think there should be less people are never willing to lead by example and volunteer to leave themselves?? It's always someone else who shouldn't be born or allowed to live.

I volunteered to not have children, but it's my mother's fault I'm here, not mine. LOL

There are plenty of people who don't have children. And to counter that.. there are those people out there that feel they need to have 20 kids (ie- the Duggar people or Octomom).

Allowed to live? So.. what- suicide? Mmkay...

What's wrong with the mother of the 16 year old? Is she not able to drag her daughter in for a Depo Provera shot every 3 months?

It is wrong to say that the insurance companies are making these decisions.

The company through which you get your insurance - your job, your trade union, etc. - is the one making these decisions.

If you work for a large corporation, your plan - what is covered and what is not covered - is completely decided by your benefits department. Many large companies are what they call "self funded", which means that the only thing the insurance company is doing is processing the claims.

Even if you work for a small business, someone at your company still made the decision which plan(s) in which to participate.

So, if something isn't covered through your insurance, go complain to the people that matter - your own benefits department!

My insurance most certainly does NOT cover viagra.

Sandy wrote "They allow men to take Viagra which is purely for sexual pleasure and then charge the heck out of women trying to get birth control who only want to prevent unwanted pregnancy."

Women use more health and government services despite paying the same health insurance premiums and lower taxes. Women are very jealous of any male-specific health insurance benefit because women want all of the money paying for women. Male needs do not matter to them.

Ok.. and women also make less money typically Vincent- so?

Are you really naive to believe that the world is fair? So women use more health resources- consider yourself lucky to be a dude. Lower taxes for being a woman? Holy crap! I didn't see the vagina deduction.. I'll have to look for that..

Sounds like women are concerned about their needs and you are concerned about yours. AND?

mmhm..

Well the city just called and said I get another increase on my taxes because there are more kids going to school.

Neither of us can do anything about that, so get over it.

I haven't met a free service yet!