Federal Health Department approves free birth control for women

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL

This will be great for poor America where most people don't really want kids but keep having them anyway. I hope they keep the stuff stocked in free clinics and make it widely known that you can get them.



Maybe this will help slow down how many ghetto kids there are that don't have good parents who actually want to do the very difficult job of raising them. It would also stem the amount of abortions due to fewer pregnancies.
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
Joined:
Dec 8, 2014
Posts:
8,681
Liked Posts:
3,049
Location:
PacNW
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Somehow I don't think this will work. It should on paper but I think a lot of people just won't care.
 

bri

New member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
4,797
Liked Posts:
1
I think it is a good idea and hope that it will be an incentive for people to become more responsible. I'm sure there are those out there that will complain because they don't want their tax money spent that way, but most of those are the same people that ***** about welfare and public assistance going out to people with all these kids. They need to decide, cause you can't have it both ways.
 

winos5

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Oct 19, 2013
Posts:
7,956
Liked Posts:
829
Location:
Wish You Were Here
Good for HHS. About time. This is excellent news for women who have private health insurance.



Unfortunately I don't think it will make much difference for women on welfare. The current welfare system rewards you with increased benifits for squeezing out puppies.



Perhaps not paying monetary welfare benifits based on the number of puppies you squeeze out has merit. The DOD quit paying BAQ/BAS benifits based on the number of dependants back in the 1980s. If it it good enough for our GIs why couldn't it work for Medicaid?
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
I don't want to get into a discussion about social engineering through mandates, but wouldn't it be great if all young women took birth control until they were ready, willing, and able to have and raise children?



Sorry to put the burden on women there, but this is probably the most effective and practical way to stop unwanted pregnancies short of abstinence. Using a condom leaves the decision in a guys hands and we all know how that usually turns out.
 

IceHogsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,024
Liked Posts:
0
From HHS website;

Last summer, HHS released new insurance market rules under the Affordable Care Act requiring all new private health plans to cover several evidence-based preventive services like mammograms, colonoscopies, blood pressure checks, and childhood immunizations without charging a copayment, deductible or coinsurance. The Affordable Care Act also made recommended preventive services free for people on Medicare.



Today’s announcement builds on that progress by making sure women have access to a full range of recommended preventive services without cost sharing, including:



•well-woman visits;

•screening for gestational diabetes;

•human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older;

•sexually-transmitted infection counseling;

•human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling;

•FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling;

•breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; and

•domestic violence screening and counseling.



New health plans will need to include these services without cost sharing for insurance policies with plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012. The rules governing coverage of preventive services which allow plans to use reasonable medical management to help define the nature of the covered service apply to women’s preventive services. Plans will retain the flexibility to control costs and promote efficient delivery of care by, for example, continuing to charge cost-sharing for branded drugs if a generic version is available and is just as effective and safe for the patient to use.



http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/08/20110801b.html



Interesting........ and scary. Once again, the Obama administration is spreading its wings and mandating more regulation and in this case, more expense for the private insurance industry. Now before the liberals and anti-capitalists get their panties in a bundle because I am defending the insurance industry, be aware that this administration is mandating even more expense to the insurance companies. Ask yourself, does this lower my cost for healthcare?



While the intention is a posititve one it shows you what happens when the government gets involved in private industry. For those that don't think that it is just another step towards socialized medicine, think again. How would you like if the government mandated every private industry on what they have to do and have to pay for.



Is it 2012 yet?
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
Still hoping for the rapture I see. Let me know how that works out for you.
 

MassHavoc

Moderator
Staff member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
17,852
Liked Posts:
2,553
I would much rather pay for the drugs with my taxes, than the babies.
 

bri

New member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
4,797
Liked Posts:
1
I know back when I took my college sex ed course they were experimenting with birth control medicine for men. Do you have any info on that, Wino?
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
Joined:
Dec 8, 2014
Posts:
8,681
Liked Posts:
3,049
Location:
PacNW
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Hell, I know my wife was on BC pills pretty much since puberty. I just know that the benefit from this will likley be lost on its target audience, and that americans are too afraid of sex in general discourse to get girls (or boys, if they ever develop the freaking shot for men) on it from puberty until they want to have kids.
 

winos5

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Oct 19, 2013
Posts:
7,956
Liked Posts:
829
Location:
Wish You Were Here
I know back when I took my college sex ed course they were experimenting with birth control medicine for men. Do you have any info on that, Wino?



The only options for men (that I'm aware of) are barrier methods (condoms), surgery, abstinence and relying on the lady to have effective contraceptives on board.



A safe effective male contraceptive pill or shot is somewhat of a medical holy grail. There are experiments with all kinds of stuff on going. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it), effective in lab rats, India or China doesn't mean safe and effective in humans and approved for use in the US. There is nothing even close in development in the US or going through the FDA approval process that I'm aware of. So its at a minimum 5 years out and more likely longer.
 

IceHogsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,024
Liked Posts:
0
I would much rather pay for the drugs with my taxes, than the babies.





Ummm, this has nothing to do with taxes. This has everything with the government telling private companies (insurance) what they must do by their order.



Once again;



preventive services without cost sharing, including:



•well-woman visits;

•screening for gestational diabetes;

•human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older;

•sexually-transmitted infection counseling;

•human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling;

•FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling;

•breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; and

•domestic violence screening and counseling.





New health plans will need to include these services without cost sharing for insurance policies with plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012.



By the way, nearly all of the services have already been covered by health insurance companies. The difference is that rather than it being subjected to a doctor co-pay, prescription co-pay or your deductible it now must be covered by the insurance company at 100%. This is all because Kathleen Sebelius says so.
 

the canadian dream

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
6,402
Liked Posts:
14
Wow. I would have never expected America to do this before us up here in Canada. This is a very bold move by your Federal government. Not sure what the cost of birth control is down there but up here it can be a bit high after a while..hope Canada can follow suit in this one to be honest. Unwanted births is a problem in Canada also esp with the less wealthy..I think this one is a global issue..why wouldn't it be? Hey guess what? Even with our social healthcare things like birth control are NOT covered for all...so this move by your Fed government should impact ours also in coming to a decision on the topic.



You do all know that birth control isn't only used for that purpose right? It is also used to minimalize the abnormal pains which some women suffer from during their monthly cycles. Not that it is ever pleasant for any woman but some (such as my better half) suffer from irregular symptoms during her cycles. Birth control helps her in that aspect also. It's a drug you do have to keep a watchful eye on though it is messing with ones natural chemical make ups. Certain cancers have been linked to certain birth control "brands". Might be wise to ask what sort of birth control fits into the "free" category. Remember "free products" also usually means "cheap products"



All interesting and a progressive move but one I would certainly keep my eyes on.
 

HawksLady84

New member
Joined:
May 20, 2010
Posts:
11
Liked Posts:
0
I'm a fan of this for all sorts of reasons. In addition to the previously mentioned supporting arguments there are many women, myself included, using BC for non-contraceptive reasons in addition to the obvious and traditional uses. I have Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and invest a small fortune on BC as treatment to keep myself healthy. I am fortunate enough to have an average paying job and it's difficult for me at times to cover costs - I can only imagine what relief this could provide for other young women who are not as privileged.
 

Bringmepie

New member
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
665
Liked Posts:
0
You do all know that birth control isn't only used for that purpose right? It is also used to minimalize the abnormal pains which some women suffer from during their monthly cycles. Not that it is ever pleasant for any woman but some (such as my better half) suffer from irregular symptoms during her cycles. Birth control helps her in that aspect also.



I knew a girl like that in college, even with the pill she'd be doubled over in pain during those few days every month.
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
Joined:
Dec 8, 2014
Posts:
8,681
Liked Posts:
3,049
Location:
PacNW
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Ummm, this has nothing to do with taxes. This has everything with the government telling private companies (insurance) what they must do by their order.



Once again;







By the way, nearly all of the services have already been covered by health insurance companies. The difference is that rather than it being subjected to a doctor co-pay, prescription co-pay or your deductible it now must be covered by the insurance company at 100%. This is all because Kathleen Sebelius says so.



It's a nice from of logic if you think about it. By preventing unwanted pregnancies (in theory), the government shifts the burden of finance from itself and welfare for financing the growth and raising of unwanted kids onto the insurance companies by preventing unwanted pregnancies...in theory.



If you really think about it, how much do birth control pills cost compared to raising a kid to the age of 18 completely on welfare?



Again, the thought process on paper. In the real world, I think this won't work because Americans are just as prudish as the Taliban when it comes to sex (especially before 18) and many teenage girls won't get access to them because of fear of their parents knowing, their pharmacist telling their parents, and the reputation they may get of being a slut rather than someone trying to be careful, and anyone on welfare that bad I doubt would care enough to take it.
 

winos5

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Oct 19, 2013
Posts:
7,956
Liked Posts:
829
Location:
Wish You Were Here
While the directive mandates private insurance to cover those services, it's hardly "free" for those participating in private insurance. I estimate I dropped $10K out of pocket last year in various premiums, deductibles, co-pays and non-covered stuff for my family in regards to health, vision and dental care. As far as the inurance companies go it's far cheaper to provide easily accessible contraceptive services and cancer screening than to pay for pre-natal care, child birth, and treatment for advanced cancer.
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
Joined:
Dec 8, 2014
Posts:
8,681
Liked Posts:
3,049
Location:
PacNW
My favorite teams
  1. Portland Timbers
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
While the directive mandates private insurance to cover those services, it's hardly "free" for those participating in private insurance. I estimate I dropped $10K out of pocket last year in various premiums, deductibles, co-pays and non-covered stuff for my family in regards to health, vision and dental care. As far as the inurance companies go it's far cheaper to provide easily accessible contraceptive services and cancer screening than to pay for pre-natal care, child birth, and treatment for advanced cancer.

And this is far cheaper than the cost of raising a kid completely on welfare through the age of 18--which was my point (agreeing with you, don't worry
<
).
 

Top