Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Contraceptive Mandate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ms_Muffintops

Ms_Muffintops

Supernova
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Location
Drury Lane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)

What do you think of health insurances and other organizations covering contraceptives and varying methods of sterilization to people?

I'm about 60/40. I'm all for providing contraceptives as there are so many varying reasons why people choose to not have a child, or go through pregnancy. Sterilization would be nice for certain people. I guess I could also see why people don't think insurance companies wouldn't want them to cover this stuff, as they aren't crucial forms of medication. But I, like many women, take birth control for medical issues, and when I had insurance, they wouldn't cover my birth control, and I was left paying for that on my own. The birth control that works best with me is $28 a month, slowly climbing in price ._. was $26, then it went to 27... now it's up to 28. And it's a legit medication for me, just as any of the other medications I take that are cheaper, yet covered.

But I was surprised to see such an uproar over this. Mostly violating religious beliefs.
 
I can see both sides of the argument here. On one hand, birth control is not a necessity for the vast majority of people who take/use it, which would mean that the insurance companies would fully be within their rights to deny coverage for such things. On the other, there are women out there such as Ms_Muffintops, that rely on the hormonal effects of birth control pills for a variety of medical needs. I think that the answer to the debate at hand is rather simple.

Insurance companies SHOULD cover the costs (or perhaps a percentage thereof) of surgical birth control procedures for both men and women. If you're going to make such a drastic choice such as to permanently remove your ability to give birth to a child, then there is likely a financial or medical reason for doing so. Sure, some people just do not want kids, but I personally feel that those people are in the minority in the group of sterilization patients.

Things that I do NOT believe should be covered are simple, over-the-counter things such as birth control pills and condoms. These things just aren't what I consider necessary and are not needed to live safely or comfortably. They are not overly expensive and are available to anyone and everyone without any requirements for purchasing.

But Deviant! You just said that some women rely on the hormonal effects of birth control! Yes, I did, and I feel that these women should have the right to request an insurance-funded medical evaluation to determine the necessity of birth control in their daily lives. If birth control is found to have a direct, positive impact on any woman examined by their physician, and an alternative substitute cannot be found to take place of the birth control, then those women should be able to have their birth control funded by their insurance because they are not taking it simply to remain infertile (or close to it; sometimes these things fail, of course).

That is my two cents. I do not feel that it is an unfair compromise to the debate at hand regarding the possible bill. It would give financial aid to those people seeking the more expensive and extreme means of birth control while not forcing the insurance companies to cover the personal, petty shit. It would also give aid t the women who take birth control for health purposes.

As for the people claiming some sort of religious infringement... Get your overzealous heads out of your asses! You live in the United States of America - a country born from the desire for freedom. That means that we ALL have the right to our beliefs - not just you. If you don't believe in birth control then you don't have to use it. If you're worried about the possible increase in health premiums because the insurance companies will be forking out more money (though I am certain that this would actually save them more than it would cost them in the long run) then appeal to your local representatives and request that they add an amendment to the bill that would allow those who are uninterested in birth-control coverage to opt-out of it for a lower premium.
 
As a note, I work in a pharmacy. Most insurance companies do not cover 'dick lifting' pills, like Levitra, Cialis, etc. Or, if they do, they pay a small percentage of it. I'd say 75% of the time, the patient ends up paying the cash price for the pills, and they aren't cheap. I think Viagra is up to $25 a pill now. Anyway...

It's likely much cheaper for the government to pay for birth control a month, than it is to help pay for a child for a month. Let's say the birth control in choice is $28 a month. The insurance won't cover it. The woman cannot afford it, so she goes without. She gets pregnant. She then applies for government aid, like foodstamps and Badger Care The government then pays for the child's food, through WIC and everything else I listed. That's a lot more expensive than paying $28 for birth control, and it could have prevented all that.

Not all mothers will apply for these, but most will, because it'll help pay for the child at no cost to them. Basically, free things, which in the end, is paid for by the state/country tax.

So, I think insurance companies absolutely should cover birth-control pills, or, at the very least, cover a certain percentage. And at this percentage, a majority of the price.
 
That's actually what doctors try to do with women who need birth control for medical purposes. They basically call up the insurance company, tell them this person needs birth control because of this health issue. They turned it down twice, third time it worked but I lost my insurance months later.

I can see your point though. It's not necessary requirements but god knows a lot of people could use them x.x and how much do you wanna bet those who are getting their panties in a bunch are also amongst those against Planned Parenthood.

Another option might be proof of financial need. I pay 28 bucks a month on my bc. Maybe they could have an exception for students or those with low income.
 
I also see a lot of people (ie right wing nutjobs) protesting this by claiming that taxpayers will be paying for the birth control pills of women.

Which, on one hand is just untrue. Even in the case of "free" birth control, it's actually just a woman getting the benefits from her employee health plan. As part of her pay, she gets health insurance. To not give her full access to that insurance's benefits would be equivalent to cutting her pay for having a uterus (not that the right would see a problem in that I imagine).

On the other hand, would that even be so bad? Why shouldn't we have taxpayer-funded birth control? It would decrease healthcare costs, decrease teen pregnancy, reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies...none of this seems bad to me.
 
This likely stems from ignorance and closed mindedness. Like when my cousin was bitching about this months ago, she was like "I don't see why women can't just pay for it out of pocket. I'm on birth control and I pay for it out of pocket. It's not THAT expensive." Correction, her parents, whom are both employed and have been by the same companies for around 20 years (rather lucky) pay for her birth control.

Sure, you can get birth control that is $5, but each woman reacts different to birth control, and they come in different hormonal combinations. The one that I use and that works well with me is $27-30 (the price fluctuates). That's a lot for me. But as far as tax-payers money, is it really? Would they rather give me WIC, healthcare for my child (which my state does give to children in needy families), and $100-400 worth in food stamps a month which I'd definitely need at this point in my life if I were to get pregnant, or $30 in birth control? Because there is no magic button that makes people financially stable, capable, and responsible just because they've brought a child into their life.
 
The argument against government-funded birth control is the same as that against government-funded abortion, and is basically this: why should the government have to pay (or pay whether required or not) to frustrate a natural function? All persons of reproductive age know where babies come from, and how not to have any. Now it is true that reliable means of preventing conception (or implantation) exist at minimal cost, but the individual who seeks to "benefit" from these should bear the cost.
 
The person already bears the cost. It comes from THEIR health insurance. The mandate is just you paying for it through your insurance. It becomes a benefit of the health plan you are ALREADY paying for.

It's not being paid for by the government or taxpayers.
 
OK. Looked at another way: this is just a case of government meddling in a closed relationship between an insurer and a policyholder; and if said regime does force the insurer to cover contraceptives, the company's obvious recourse would be to add the cost of contraceptives to every woman's premium and pocket the increase if the "benefit" is not used, in final effect only adding to its profit. This is solely what young Miss Fluck accomplished with her "Woe is me, I can't keep my panties up!" lament over which the Left became so exercised, giving further evidence of their failure to think things through. Just stipulating something does not make it true.
 
Did you seriously just assume that pretty much every woman who wants birth control wants it so they can have shit tons of sex "without worry?"

Go hang out with Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of the reason why a woman wants birth control, it's a hormone that messes with their body and should be covered under HEALTH insurance because, guess what? It changes your body chemistry.

The point the woman was making was that it should have already been a part of an average health insurance plan for women to make birth control more accessible to women who may not be able to afford it on their own without help.
 
It's not just for that, derp.

Most women use it to have a steady cycle, control symptoms of their menstrual cycle, and not bleed excessively for more than a couple of days at a time. It is not JUST for "without risk of bearing children." It's only so effective and there are much higher risks of having strokes while being on birth control. Unlike condoms since you don't ingest those. You just put them on your boner and tadah.

Glad to see you walk around my question since you pretty much said the chick was a "slut" without saying it directly.

And also completely missed the fact that women can only get birth control by PRESCRIPTION ONLY. It has to be written up by your doctor in order to get it. You can't just walk into a drug store and be like, "Hey, can I have those anti-baby pills?"

And there are also varying doses because birth control makes you sick for a few weeks once you get onto it before your body has to acclimate to a new drug and hormone being introduced into your system. It's not like "BAM. CAN"T HAVE BABIES." It takes a month before your body will be able to protect you due to birth control and that's only if you take it at the same time every single day. If you miss a dose, you risk getting sick along with minimizing the effects it has.

Do more research before spewing stupidity from your mouth/fingers.
 
Various reasons why women get birth control:

1. It lowers your risk of cancer (granted it can also further along cancer, but that is what papsmears are for). Ovarian and uteran cancer run in my best friends family, and she was put on birth control at a young age to possibly help out with this along with various other reasons.
2. Helps with hormone-related acne.
3. Helps with serious issues and complications with PMS and menstruation (it lessens the symptoms). And no one without a vagina has room to speak about the symptoms of PMS. At a normal level, it can still be a bit a burden on our overall health for a week. Some women get it much worse than others.
4. Helps relieve Endometriosis symptoms.
5. Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome--- it helps out in more than one way with PCOS.
6. Irregular periods (lack of periods=lack of cycle and you need to have a cycle, and birth control helps out with that.)
7. Other hormonal imbalances.
8. They cannot physically withstand carrying a child but do not want permanent birth control.

I use birth control for various reasons and it is NOT for sex. I was on birth control long before I started having sex. I have PCOS and Hypothyroidism and both of them mess up my cycle and my hormones and birth control helps out greatly.

It's too easy to say "Oh? You want birth control? Pay for it yourself! Can't afford it and you don't want a child? Then don't have sex!" Sex is a normal, healthy, and beneficial activity. It's good for your mental, emotional, and physical health. And it's cheap and disrespectful to use terms such as 'keep her panties up', that's a term one might use when calling a girl a hussy. That's rather prudish if you ask me. Having sex doesn't make you irresponsible or slutty. Well, in a literal definition sense I suppose yes, they are slutty, but I'm more so referring to the colloquial meaning and intention the word has today.
 
Actually, many persons without vaginae "have room" to speak about the symptoms of PMS. These people are called "doctors".

Seriously, the female reproductive tract (and function) are enormously complex, much like the digestive system, and perhaps more so. This must go back even further than the change from egg-laying to live-bearing, because the process of laying viable eggs is every bit as complicated. Consider the poor kiwi, which annually lays an egg amounting to forty percent of her body weight!

Now, about the "hussy" thing - very good term, inasmuch as it avoids calling the girl a "slut" while leaving absolutely no doubt what she is.
 
Health insurance companies should also be forced to subsidize medical marijauna patients and discount their medications. It's a valid choice of treatment for many chronic illnesses and problems. But you know, if you even say the word cannabis you're a worthless fucking stoner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom