I think its a damn good idea. Too many radicals being born. Tea Baggers and PETA members need to be stopped at the earliest point possilbe. Get 'er done!

Mike, I remember that first ten minutes of Idiocracy .... and fear it is coming whether we do this or not (just watch cable TV for a couple of hours) ... but if you will think this through carefully ... you will find it might just slow down the process by a couple of decades .... at least in this country ....

This should be free to all women, period, not just insured women. And, one more little thought: I have to pay full freight on my hormone replacement therapy, and that seriously sucks. Still one more instance of inequality: my insurance does pay for viagra!

Left of the left and right of the right creates a need for subsidies (call it what you like). What we need is incentives to create a healthy economy that doesn't need as much intervention.

Focus on the middle class (Workers) and it will balance out.

Both sides need to stop selling our future for votes. Climb out of the box.

If a woman is in a position to have health insurance to begin with, isn't she likely to be able to afford birth control? She can go to Planned Parenthood if her budget is very tight. I doubt that this rule is going to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies in the sector who has insurance. It will do nothing to reduce the births in sectors where there is no insurance. However, maybe it will free up some of Planned Parenthood's funds to be used for people without insurance. IF you can get them there.

I like the idea but I don't think it's a right for men to get free Viagara or women to get free birth control.

It's the responsibility of the person/couple to have or avoid having children, not government.

The question is where should it stop? Meaning if women get free birth control, how about free Rogaine? Or laser treatment for unwanted hair? How far can it go and when does it stop?

If women can get BC paid for does that mean I can get my Bl0wJ0b paid for because they both prevent future children. I mean fair is fair No?

I need a lewinski

What kitty said makes perfect sense. If you made abortion illegal, you'd simply force women who wanted an abortion to have it illegally and dangerously. I think we should give extra birth control to radicals who want to make abortion illegal. They need it!

Good point, clebro. Or, if you make alcohol illegal, then people who want to drink illegally will just do it.

Uhhh..wait...they did. Never mind.

clebro- The point being, there is a push to make Abortions illegal again taking away womens reproductive rights. Why has viagra been covered? Some don't even believe in birth control. Do you have kids? Hope not!

clebro you really don't have any idea how inane and silly your comparison is do you.

Shhh, Sandy, you are invading a sleeping mind. It wants to keep on dreaming...

So you'd rather your insurance dollars be spent on pregnancy and birth for a woman who can't get an abortion because it's illegal or impossible to obtain?

The numbers don't lie - birth control is FAR cheaper.

One big reason that HC costs are so high is because insurance traditionally did not cover any preventative service. This is a huge step in the right direction. Prevention is far cheaper!

There's a reason why they have a one child limit in China...

digitalnoise ... that makes no sense. So, if it costs less to cover birthcontrol then we should do it versus the cost of women getting pregnant? I would like to have my clothes paid for by insurance. That would be less costly then going to the ER for sunburn and skin cancer from exposed skin. Is that how you decide what gets covered by insurance? Whatever is less of a cost? That's not fair.

Are you not a responsible adult? Why can't you pay for your own reproductive health and contraceptive choices... you need me to help pay for you?

If that is the case... I should have say over your choice and I say you should be forced to get norplant until you can afford to be an adult and pay your way. People always seem to be in favor of stuff as long as someone else is paying for them... this is not what insurance is for.

In the meantime, you can pay for my liposuction and hair growth pills (I know they are not medically necessary, but then again, neither are birth control pills).

Viagra is not covered by Medicaid and so is also not covered by many insurance plans. And yet, Viagra is to remedy a medical condition that is otherwise a normal function. But, birth control is now covered for females to prevent what would otherwise be the normal function and outcome of sex ... justified based on the fact it saves money versus pregnancy. That is just special. We men are just suckers and we just let it happen....

As a country we have choices, but there are consequences associated with choice. We can choose cover Birth control for women on Medicaid so that they don't have children they don't want, or not cover it and have more and more children on Medicaid (because their mothers did not have access to birth control) for at least 18 years, more children living in poverty who can then grow up and then repeat the cycle.

I though that the repubs wanted to reduce cost? Which is cheaper, pills at $15.00 per month or a child's health care and food and living expenses for 18 years (times how ever many children the mother gives birth to)?

In any event, no one is forcing a woman to use birth control, it is a choice that is available if she (yes SHE) wants it.

You repubs claim to be the party of "small government" and "freedom" but I guess you are only in favor of these things if YOU approve so in other words, Government must be small when you say so but darn big when you see fit. You guys just do not make a whole heap of sense.

Billy,

In some cases BC pills are medically necessary, whereas your hair growth pills aren't. That is the difference.

billyd rules, what is your position on insurance paying hundreds of thousands or even millions per patient for maintaining people that are in a persistent vegetative state?

"you need me to help pay for that?, that being the case, I should have some say and I say blah blah blah"

your words

Totally Agree!!! I never did understand how the bean-counters in the insurance companies never caught on to the fact that if they paid for even part of birth control for every woman enrolled in their plan it would still be WAY less money than the pre-natal, delivery and coverage costs for the child once it is born, even if you add up covering that $5 per month for a woman's entire reproductive life. I mean, birth control pills are as cheap as $10 per month, even having a 50% co-pay would allow many women to use them, would be cheaper than buying a months worth of condoms and is WAY less expensive than even the first pre-natal visit and ultrasound once a woman is expecting. Not to mention all the people out there who, like me, need to be on BC pills for medical reasons other than birth control (such as the hormonal disorder known as PCOS).

That doesn't even touch the argument that they were more than willing to pay for viagra, penis pumps and everything else to allow men to have all the sex they wanted, but if you buy something that can allow women to have sex free from the fear of an unwanted child, that would somehow be wrong.

If all those "religious" idiots out there who want to stop abortions (assuming that's their actual goal...I think it's probably not that but more about controlling women in general but that's beside the point) this is one of the best ways to do it. It's cheaper, safer, doesn't cause desperate women to take their lives in their own hands to end an unwanted pregnancy and doesn't require you to build a bomb and blow up innocent people or take a gun into a church and murder someone because they "murder the unborn". Finally some common sense!

actually a norplant or similar device should be among the birth control options available for women without a copay

Yes, yes, yes! It's about time. It's common sense that preventing unwanted pregnancies will reduce the number of children born into unprepared households and poverty. Any way you slice it, that's fewer people taxing the system. The cost of free birth control is nothing compared to the cost of public support for 18 years or, in some cases, life.

Further, birth control is also taken for other medical reasons that have nothing to do with pregnancy. Many of those medical ailments require regular doctor's visits and, in some cases, hospital stays.

Pay a little upfront and avoid paying a lot on the back end.

I'm not sure what "conservative groups" the author is talking about - but I am one vehemently pro-life Catholic Republican that fully supports this move. It SHOULD cut down on abortions, and even if not it certainly won't cause MORE abortions!

non-profit worker ... and so that is your justification for why I should pay for BC? Becuase in the long run it saves me money versus pre-natal, delivery, post-natal, social welfare, etc.? I don't even know where to begin with addressing the weakness of that argument. My issue with paying for BC is that it is not helping a medical condition like cancer, high blood pressure, arthritis, etc. I do not accept the argument that I should pay higher premiums for something that is not for health care, because in the long run it is saving me money versus bringing another child into this world that someone can't afford.

Christa,

Of course, in some cases they are medically necessary... and in those limited cases I have no problem with supplying it. But that is not what this rule change says. It says free pills for everyone (even people that currently pay for their own) paid for by the rest of us...

One of the reasons why insurance is so expensive is that so many unnecessary, but politically motivated mandates are included in the cost, and this is just another example. I as a man now have to pay for womens contraception even though I have no need and do not want coverage for it. It is just cost shifting from the users to me. I find this an immoral use of force.

I guess all of the liberated women out there still need daddy (government / other citizens) to support them financially... otherwise they can't figure out on their own how to be responsible adults.

... and to answer all of the "if you don't buy it for them, they will have welfare kids and cost you for 18 years"... contraception in many forms is widely available today (in California at least) for free or very low cost with a lot of education on contraception being taught in schools. This hasn't stopped one irresponsible person from having kids and being on welfare. There are many negatives to having kids you can't afford, and these negatives are not enough to get these people to Planned Parenthood, etc... so what makes you think this new rule will have a different effect? Now, they will become responsible?

The weird part, as I read through these comments, is that many of the "welfare for 18 years" crowd kind of see this ruling as a backdoor eugenics plan for undesirables. You people are creepy.

I want to preface my comment by saying that I have absolutely no objection to birth control; religiously or otherwise. However, I don't quite understand why it should be a free service from private health insurance plans. It would seem that the vast majority of people who are in a position to afford private health insurance would reasonably have the means to afford birth control on their own.

Moreover, the economic argument seems to be predicated on the assumption that free birth control will decrease unwanted pregnancies and the associated costs. But, again, the general demographics of the privately-insured seem to suggest that free birth-control would not have a significant impact on the number of unwanted - and thus costly - pregnancies.

KiMo- How do women not have total control of there reproductive "health" now? Good gracious women have the control to do whatever they want concerning their reproductive health now. First and formost on the list here, women have the control to choose wether or not to have sex, you know, the leading cause of pregnancy in the world. The one sure way not to get pregnant is not have sex! I know, I know, unrealistic to believe that grown adults can show enough restraint to wait until they can afford a possible outcome of their actions.

In addition to the above it really isn't access to BC pills that is the problem. Most community health organization already give BC pills away for free anyways to whom ever asks. The real problem is compliance. I happen to work in an industry that would know. Wether you pay for your pills or they are free they won't work if you don't take them like you are suppose too! This folks is the major flaw to this new regulation.

As a fyi, I don't agree with insurance companies paying for viagra or any such medication as well. You want to romp in the weeds pay for it yourself. Sex, last I checked, isn't a requirement to live.

Personally, if you are on state aid and have a child that's fine, but if it was up to me you would then get sterilized, same with men. If you can't take care of yourself and have proven to be a poor decision maker then those that pay the bills should be allowed to make decisions for you just like we do for children!

that's your rational, that birth control is not "medically necessary"? Than why is vigra covered? Erections are not medically necessary.

Than why is vigra covered?

Fortunately, I've had no cause to research this explicitly to date, but I'd be surprised if viagra was covered with zero co-pay by any private health plan. Though I can only speak for myself, I don't think anyone's arguing that birth control should be 100% excluded from health insurance; simply that it shouldn't be 100% free, as that would arguably raise costs for everyone on a given plan.

Paul,

you clearly missed the point where I talked about how B/C often IS used for a medical condition, and not for pregnancy prevention. Believe it or not, there are other, non-reproductive related reasons for taking it.

PCOS is the easiest example; it's a "cluster" type disorder that results from hormone imbalances within women. Various symptoms range from hirsutism to painful cysts on the ovaries to migraines. In order to control the symptoms, the hormones which regulate ovulation and menstruation must be brought into regulation. Often women with PCOS do not have regular periods, resulting in severe cramping and anemia when the periods arrive (because of the massive amounts of blood loss involved when it is allowed to build up for months) to increase risks of endometriosis and uterine cancer. In addition, another factor often seen in women with PCOS is something called Insulin Resistance, a condition in which our cells grow resistant to insulin, thus spurring our pancreas to release more than needed in order to get the necessary effects. This increases our risks for diabetes.

With PCOS, the only way to control the disease, prevent endometriosis/uterine cancer is to regulate the cycles. This is accomplished through hormonal birth control (usually monophasic pills as opposed to multi or tri-phasic pills). The rest of the disease is controlled via diet, exercise and sometimes insulin re-sensitizing medications such as Metformin.

B/C is as necessary for us PCOS sufferers as Blood Pressure medication is for those with Hypertension. Are you saying that you are against this medication being provided for those of us with PCOS, just because the medication also happens to prevent pregnancy?

For those who keep talking about this being a 'free' service from insurance ... nothing is ever free .... not ever. This is paid for by premiums just like my annual physical exam, which is also paid for by insurance, and which is also not 'free'. I pay for it with my considerable premiums and everyone wins ... I win and the insurer wins, because it costs a lot less than the alternative. It would appear (OK, it is blatantly obvious) that many who object to birth control do at least ostensibly on religious grounds ... too bad ... so sad. As to those who are just plain misogynistic ... well ... I have an opinion on them, too ... but were I to express it openly, I would likely get kicked off the Vine for bad language .....

For all the men who are complaining about their costs going up:

A) Get a life! Your costs are going up annually anyway, at astronomical rates. Adding BC coverage is not going to change the fact that every year your premium is going to go up.

B) We don't get to pick and choose what is covered by our money when we send it to insurance companies. BillyD was complaining that he was going to have to pay for this "even though he had no use for and don't want to pay for" it. Well, in a perfect world I wouldn't have to pay for your prostate exam either, since I have no need for it and don't want to pay.

Do you believe in free markets?

If so, then you are welcome to leave. There's more than 200 countries out there who sell a particular set of services, and require payment for those services in taxes.

If you don't like what the US is selling, then go somewhere else and buy those services. No one is forcing you to be an American and pay anyone your hard-earned money.

Go pay what you want.

control .... you are correct. This is yet another way liberals are giving individuals control over themselves. This is especially dangerous where women are concerned ... next thing you know, they will demand the right to vote! Of course, if one were to look at this purely in terms of dollars and cents (say for a moment I am interested in reducing entitlement spending, which as a responsible American, I am) .... let us say a poor person gets free birth control .... and let us say it costs us $360.00 per year for 20 years ... that comes to about $7,200.00. Let us further say that for every 20 women so served, we prevent one unwanted pregnancy (it will be more than that, I assure you) which will result in a child going on AFDC, which currently costs on average about $5,700.00 per year ... or over a hundred thousand dollars for the child's minor life (0-18 years) .... not to mention WIC and Medicaid ... if you are worried about dollars and sense .... this is a huge windfall. Is that what really concerns you?

However you fail to account for the widespead outbreak of STD's, with more women on birth control less men will wear condoms. Now where's the savings?

No. But one could ask your representatives to sponser legislation to get the Taxpayers out of the "baby business."

While I'll agree that preventing pregnancies before they occur is a huge step forward, I'm not sure I agree that this will have a measurable impact on the number of abortions, either. Plain and simple, it's still a woman's choice to use birth control or not. I think the vast majority of those who chose to use it have found a way to afford it, either through free and reduced pricing offered through Planned Parenthood or with the co-pays they already had. I do, however, expect this will increase the rates for every insurance plan out there since it means more money out of the insurance company's profit margin to pick up the increased tab.

As I mentioned above, it isn't access that's the problem. It's compliance. Many who get free BCs still get pregnant because they can't remember to take their pill. Say what you want but no amount of money is going to solve this as even if they get pregnant there is no consequence, just go to planned parenthood and get a tax payer funded abortion, boom, done!

You're right nothing is free...the costs of prevention are minuscule compared to the cost of treatment. So when it comes to things like this, yes someone is still paying, but much much less than they would otherwise.

Personally, I'm tired of MY hard earned money going to fund people like you.

Do you believe in free markets?

If so, then you are welcome to leave. There's more than 200 countries out there who sell a particular set of services, and require payment for those services in taxes.

If you don't like what the US is selling, then go somewhere else and buy those services. No one is forcing you to be an American and pay anyone your hard-earned money.

Go pay what you want.

"Finally, a step in the right direction.

US is over-populated. Having children is a financial and personal sacrifice. US taxpayers should not fund children. Even the child tax credits should be abolished."

AMEN! Thank God common sense prevails...

And just think, overpopulation will be solved (or at least better off) since now less men will wear condoms, hence widespread outbreaks of STDs, like AIds.

It's only common sense for equal pay for equal work, but as long as women continue to hide behind their skirts and use the excuse of being a woman as to why they can't do this, or why they can't do that, then women will always be second class citizens.

All medical should be free. We live in a first world country and yet we have third world healthcare. Single Payer is what we need.

Ok, if you're going to give me a wage (welfare/social security), pay my medical (national health care), and demand that I should have a house and further claim I have a right to have everything everyone else has, why in the hell should I spend 40 hours a week at my job?

This is what we are becoming. Frankly, I'm starting to have a hard time figuring out why I should tell me kids to get an education. If they are lucky enough to be successful they will be considered evil and greedy and people will berate them every chance they get while on the other hand if they don't get an education and live off society every excuse will be given them and they will be pitied and supplied everything they need if not more.

As for this issue of birth control. Pay your own way! You want to talk other conditions then we can find some lee-way, but really, birth control.....forsake a pack of smokes, a bottle of booze, a night at the bar, a dime bag, a month on the couch without moving. I think you get the drift.

good for our country? You do realize when they say it is covered by insurance that means you and I pay for it? I would also like to pay for other peoples' new cars. Can we make this a part of coverage so that you also have to pay for this since that is what I want? I think us buying everyone cars would alleviate all the public assistance for transport covered by Medicaid, accidental deaths on the side of the road from people walking, create additional jobs at U.S. automakers.

Paul, This is not like paying for someones new car, it is paying for a relatively inexpensive preventative measure so that we all are not saddled with the cost of thousand's of unwanted children every year. I love children myself but I feel that people who could afford children should have them. People should not be forced to have a child unless they are ready for and want that child. I guess the next law you repubs are going to try to push is "no sex unless you are trying to procreate".

A woman with a condition called PCOS requires BCP but BCP is not covered so women have to pay for it out of pocket or suffer the risk of being prone to Type II diabetes and other diseases.

Also, women with hormone issues require BCP to regulate their system or risk larger issues. But BCP is not covered so they pay for it out of pocket.

BCP has multiple purposes not just preventing pregnancy. Educate yourselves.

Hey Paul............

Would you rather pay for BC or to raise someone elses kid for 18 years...hmmmm - do the math! I am included in that "I pay for it" and I will gladly pay for it so as to not bring unwanted kids into the world that will cost everyone.

This is long over due and very financially responsible. We wouldn't be having this debate if men could get pregnant.

Why not make the Big Pharma give them away free? Why should my insurance go up to cover this? I'm past my need for BC. And when I did use it, I paid for it.

Better yet, why not make them over the counter so you don't even have to pay your doctor co-pay to get them. Just walk right on up to the counter and the clerk will hand you a box.

I like the car idea, I need a new car, but since I can't afford it, you should be forced to pay extra on your car payment every month, then the finance department can apply that extra money to my payment.

boston ... maybe those who actually use a service should pay for it? Communist.

Allmill2 ... I think that is a terrible argument to say something saves money so it should be covered by health insurance, even though it is not for alleviating a current medical condition or to prevent a medical condition. It is to reduce a future social cost. Just retarded logic.

Emma, (#18.3) My insurance paid for BC pills for treatment of my endometriosis for years. All the doctor had to do was make sure that the script said "for the treatment of...." My daughter had the same experience with her insurance company. (also for endometriosis).

I would sure rather pay for birth control for someone than pay to raise their kids (and their kids)... then again, this program will not reduce the number of births in the responsible sectors. Those without insurance will probably continue to reproduce at an alarming rate.

I am sorry but I just don't get how everyone fails to see the correlation that is more women on birth control = more people with STDs. Men are not going to wear condoms as much if they know the woman they are sleeping with is on BC Pills. So now the cost of raising a child is now replaced with lifelong AIDS and Herpes treatments.

I think more people would pay attention if you didn't end every post with some kind of inane comment.

I actually think your point is valid. Will this increase the spread of STDs? Honestly, I don't know - I'd love to see some studies on that. I'm sure they have been done. All I can say is that you have to see a doctor annually for a BC prescription. That provides a lot of opportunities to educate female patients in a healthy, supportive environment. A good doctor will also encourage annual STD testing at that required check up.

Also, you can catch a lot of STDs without actually having vaginal sex so I'm not sure how much birth control would increase or decrease the prevalence of many STDs. Herpes, for example, can be contracted through all sorts of activities that don't lead to pregnancy. HIV is different and, yes, that would be a concern of mine too.

They're PO'd because something that's available to women has the word (gasp!) "control" in it.

Man haters of the world unite Christine....

Control? Women control everything. As a woman, I am ashamed to be associated with other woman who spout crap like this. As long as women refuse to stand up an take responsibility for our own actions, we will ALWAYs be considered second class citizens. But we won't, because as a whole women like hiding behind their skirts and using the "I'm a woman" excuse. Yes, even you Christine.

"Women control everything"? You owe your life to a man, would not be writing on this computer, driving your car, living in your house, using phones, be safe and secure in your country and city, have electricity, nothing ... without men. We run the businesses, invented everything important, started the goverments, are the head of households. Women bear children and the man who earns the money allows women to do most of the shopping .. if that is your definition of control then more "power" to you ... And, you wouldn't be here withot men, don't forget.

Bonnie,

You are an embarrassemnt to your own sex....shame on you.

Women do NOT controll everything; where have you been living? Wealthy caucasian males control the YOUR world. They make the laws, enforce absurd religious beliefs and constraints and control the world financial institutions. Might want to read up on some history there girl ...(HIStory - get it).

It was and continues to be women that have to fight for the most basic human and civil rights in this country. And we are the lucky ones...try fighting for women's right in the middle east!
You should thanks your foremothers who risked it all to demand equality and fairness. Some men rose above and assisted in that fight - but not many!

shame on you.

Really dude, when you resort to name calling, you lose your argument. So some religions don't want to cover this. So what? Convert. I don't think people should be open to lawsuits because they don't want to do business with gays and lesbians either. There are plenty of people who will. You shouldn't be able to force your beliefs on other people, just as they should not be able to force theirs on you.

when you resort to name calling, you lose your argument

Tell that to all your teabagger friends who like to call liberals "socialists".

You shouldn't be able to force your beliefs on other people, just as they should not be able to force theirs on you

I'm not forcing my beliefs on anybody, but there are plenty of far-right extremists in the Tea Party who like to do so.

Bonnie. I appreciate your comments. For me it is not a religious issue but simply an issue of BC not being related to health care or preventative health care. Unless of course the argument of extension is used ... that one thing will lead to another and another and cost us more in the long run. With those kinds of extensions of arguments I could make a connection between dirt and world peace. In fact, pretty easily.

Funny thing is, I haven't seen much at all in the way of anti-birth control Christians on this thread, but there are a lot of name-calling lefties being sure to accuse Christianity of causing all the worlds evils... Too bad we can't remove the vitriol and have an honest conversation on the subject.

EvilMonkey, you are forcing your beliefs on other people if you are ok with forcing me to pay for BC. And as for "teabaggers", not every conservative is an extremist. Now, I'm a fiscal conservative, but I'm all for your freedom to do what ever the heck you want as long as I don't have to pay for it, or the consequences of your bad decisions. Your right to life, liberty and the persuit of happyness ends at my front door. And my wallet.

Paul there are several medical conditions that Birth Control is used to treat. PCOS has been mentioned a handful of times. There are also issues with dysmennorhea and other hormonal imbalance issues that are treated with Birth Control. I also work with the parent of special-needs little girls. Said parent is looking to the future and the fact that she doesn't want her little girls having issues with menstruation on top of their life-long disabilities. They have no way of communicating pain/distress other than crying or screaming. When the time comes those little girls will be given long-term Birth Control so that they won't have one more thing that they aren't able to deal with on their own. Birth Control isn't simply about the ability to have sex without getting pregnant. Sometimes it actually is about real, serious medical issues. And for those who would argue that men won't use condoms: Just because she's on the pill doesn't mean that she doesn't also require her man to wear a raincoat when they play.

are you challenging women's reproductive rights? did you hear me? i said rights! Rights! R-I-G-H-T-S. shame! how dare you.

I pay co-pays for my allergy and asthma medication, as well as my birth control. It'll be nice to have one co-pay eliminated, but I'm sure it'll just be covered by higher premiums.

bunny girl ... if I could I would gladly have my premiums increase to help offset costs of this medically necessary asthma medication. That is what the insurance-premium-pool is supposed to be all about. best wishes....

Toxigal ... for any reason that BC is used for medically necessary treatments for women than I think most all of the people posting comments againt BC coverage would change to say they support it being covered fully with no copay. I know I would ...