Federal Health Department approves free birth control for women

[BigPete]

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.

Preventive care is definitely the way to go. But it will take a serious culture shift. When I was on active duty they made you get certain medical screenings and services (shots and such) on a regular basis. If you are a military retiree being taken care of by the VA in any way then you have to go in regularly to get check up on. Kids living in just about any responsible household go to get regular check ups. But adults only get care when they need treatment, or at least guys do that. Women have a different reason to go to the doctor regularly.

Until we all get comfortable going to see the doctor more regularly, and they get more used to doing simple tests more frequently to look for cancers and diseases, I don't see society as a whole benefitting from preventive care. Not to mention, the costs will frustrate the shit out of the fee for services medical industry.

 

[klemmer]

From HHS website;





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?

Doesn't Planned Parenthood already do those things, along with some others that the Republican Party thinks is their mandate to eliminate?

 

[jaxhawksfan]

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.

I'm not against paying for birth control. It should be made available to anyone who wants to use it. However, in your out-of-pocket scenario, you can throw the thousands in dental care out of that figure since there really isn't a "real" dental insurance. Most are just discount plans, therefore dental costs are what they are. Vision is pretty much the same.

 

[winos5]

I'm not against paying for birth control. It should be made available to anyone who wants to use it. However, in your out-of-pocket scenario, you can throw the thousands in dental care out of that figure since there really isn't a "real" dental insurance. Most are just discount plans, therefore dental costs are what they are. Vision is pretty much the same.

I'd disagree. I have dental insurance and my medical insurance has a vision plan (true it's not very good). I'm paying for dental insurance to the tune of thousands per year in premiums, co-pays, deductibles and non-covered treatments. Preventive exams, cleanings, periodic xrays are covered 100%. Treatment, depending on what it is 0-80% and orthodontics a one time lump sum per individual.

 

[supraman]

I would much rather pay for the drugs with my taxes, than the babies.

I choose option C, not my fucking problem either way.

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.

You mean pearl necklace isn't reliable?

 

[Pez68]

Incoming increases to insurance costs.....



The government telling insurance companies what services/products they have to provide free of cost is fucking ridiculous. I can't believe more people aren't upset over this.

 

[Kerfuffle]

From HHS website;





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?

I couldn't agree more. It's another cost to the insurance companies which will be distributed down across all the other policy holders. And in addition, that increased cost is also passed to employers in the form of higher premiums that they pay for their employees. The problem I have with it is basically I'm going to pay more for women to have sex free of charge. I'm fully aware that many women take birth control due to hormone or other issues and that's fine but I believe saying that it's covered for everyone just means a free pill for all women - even those that are healthy and just it as birth control alone. I don't see this leading at all to less unwanted births. Those that are irresponsible and/or careless to begin with are still going to be that way even with the new legislation.

 

[Pez68]

"Under the law, we're making it illegal to charge women more just because of their gender," HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on Monday.

So let me get this straight. It's illegal to charge women for birth control pills, but guys still have to buy rubbers? Did I miss something, or are vasectomies now 100% paid for by insurance as well? Do insurance companies pay for condoms for men? No? So where is this "charge women more" bullshit coming from?



This is a joke. Birth control isn't a preventative care service like a pap smear or a mammary examination. You don't want to get pregnant, don't ****, or use a condom. Sex is a choice. Getting sick is not. Last I checked, birth control won't stop the spread of STDs. Condoms do. That being the case, wouldn't it make more sense to make insurance companies pay for condoms?



Our government is filled with fucking retards.

 

[LordKOTL]

Incoming increases to insurance costs.....



The government telling insurance companies what services/products they have to provide free of cost is fucking ridiculous. I can't believe more people aren't upset over this.

It's no more upsetting than the government telling automakers what safety features they have to have in the cars they make.



You can either have the insurance companies pay for the BC pills and pass that money onto the policy holders at a relatively nominal cost, or you can have the taxpayers pay more of an unwanted pregnancy through welfare.



Just like you can have the auto companies pay for better air bags which passes the money onto the consumer, or you can have the taxpayer pay more on the subsidy that comes from having someone become paralyzed in a crash that a better air bag would have enabled them to walk away from.



Along the lines of the same analogy "Paying more for women to have sex" is akin to saying that you had to "pay more for the average joe to get into a car wreck free of charge."



Translate the $1000 or so per airbag into the cost of rehabilitating someone from a grevious accident and it makes fiscal sense. Translate the cost of 18 years of BC medication to the cost of rasing a kid on welfare over 18 years and again, it makes fiscal sense.



The only two underlying themes are that yes, I am wary tht the target audience of this program will be completely missed since those women simply don't care, and whether the insurance company pays for BC or the taxpayer pays for raising a kid on welfare, it's all going to come out of John Q Public's pocket. Thus, we might as well chose the cheapest option since open revolt is not a popular idea.

 

[supraman]

Our government is filled with fucking retards.

QFT

 

[supraman]

It's no more upsetting than the government telling automakers what safety features they have to have in the cars they make.



You can either have the insurance companies pay for the BC pills and pass that money onto the policy holders at a relatively nominal cost, or you can have the taxpayers pay more of an unwanted pregnancy through welfare.



Just like you can have the auto companies pay for better air bags which passes the money onto the consumer, or you can have the taxpayer pay more on the subsidy that comes from having someone become paralyzed in a crash that a better air bag would have enabled them to walk away from.



Along the lines of the same analogy "Paying more for women to have sex" is akin to saying that you had to "pay more for the average joe to get into a car wreck free of charge."



Translate the $1000 or so per airbag into the cost of rehabilitating someone from a grevious accident and it makes fiscal sense. Translate the cost of 18 years of BC medication to the cost of rasing a kid on welfare over 18 years and again, it makes fiscal sense.



The only two underlying themes are that yes, I am wary tht the target audience of this program will be completely missed since those women simply don't care, and whether the insurance company pays for BC or the taxpayer pays for raising a kid on welfare, it's all going to come out of John Q Public's pocket. Thus, we might as well chose the cheapest option since open revolt is not a popular idea.

Or we get rid of this socialistic bullshit and it is the individuals problem. Sorry America needs to get off government tit.

 

[klemmer]

Did I miss something, or are vasectomies now 100% paid for by insurance as well?

Mine just cost the copay.

 

[Pez68]

It's no more upsetting than the government telling automakers what safety features they have to have in the cars they make.



You can either have the insurance companies pay for the BC pills and pass that money onto the policy holders at a relatively nominal cost, or you can have the taxpayers pay more of an unwanted pregnancy through welfare.



Just like you can have the auto companies pay for better air bags which passes the money onto the consumer, or you can have the taxpayer pay more on the subsidy that comes from having someone become paralyzed in a crash that a better air bag would have enabled them to walk away from.



Along the lines of the same analogy "Paying more for women to have sex" is akin to saying that you had to "pay more for the average joe to get into a car wreck free of charge."



Translate the $1000 or so per airbag into the cost of rehabilitating someone from a grevious accident and it makes fiscal sense. Translate the cost of 18 years of BC medication to the cost of rasing a kid on welfare over 18 years and again, it makes fiscal sense.



The only two underlying themes are that yes, I am wary tht the target audience of this program will be completely missed since those women simply don't care, and whether the insurance company pays for BC or the taxpayer pays for raising a kid on welfare, it's all going to come out of John Q Public's pocket. Thus, we might as well chose the cheapest option since open revolt is not a popular idea.

Except, this has nothing to do with unwanted pregnancies and welfare. Medicaid, which most welfare beneficiaries are likely on, already covers birth control... THOSE PEOPLE JUST DON'T USE IT. Either because they WANT more kids, to collect a bigger check, or because they're too fucking stupid, ignorant, or lazy to use birth control.



People that have insurance, are likely not going to be collecting welfare if they happen to get pregnant. If my wife gets pregnant, it's not because I can't afford birth control pills. It would be entirely our fault.



This is ridiculous and just one more instance of the government sticking their fucking nose into something they shouldn't. Period.

 

[Kerfuffle]

It's no more upsetting than the government telling automakers what safety features they have to have in the cars they make.



You can either have the insurance companies pay for the BC pills and pass that money onto the policy holders at a relatively nominal cost, or you can have the taxpayers pay more of an unwanted pregnancy through welfare.



Just like you can have the auto companies pay for better air bags which passes the money onto the consumer, or you can have the taxpayer pay more on the subsidy that comes from having someone become paralyzed in a crash that a better air bag would have enabled them to walk away from.



Along the lines of the same analogy "Paying more for women to have sex" is akin to saying that you had to "pay more for the average joe to get into a car wreck free of charge."



Translate the $1000 or so per airbag into the cost of rehabilitating someone from a grevious accident and it makes fiscal sense. Translate the cost of 18 years of BC medication to the cost of rasing a kid on welfare over 18 years and again, it makes fiscal sense.



The only two underlying themes are that yes, I am wary tht the target audience of this program will be completely missed since those women simply don't care, and whether the insurance company pays for BC or the taxpayer pays for raising a kid on welfare, it's all going to come out of John Q Public's pocket. Thus, we might as well chose the cheapest option since open revolt is not a popular idea.

Your point makes sense if you believe that the free birth control will lead to less babies being born to unfit mothers and less of a drain on the welfare system. However I disagree and don't see that correlation. The unfit mother is still going to be just as careless whether the pill is free or not to her. I don't believe we will see any cost savings on the back end with less welfare or otherwise as a result of the free handout. I don't see the car correlation analogy as being on the same par here.

 

[Pez68]

Mine just cost the copay.

Good to know, but I assume the same goes for the equivalent surgeries for women. Not really birth control anyways, but an elective surgery. I imagine the coverage for those is entirely dependent on the insurance company.

 

[TSD]

So let me get this straight. It's illegal to charge women for birth control pills, but guys still have to buy rubbers? Did I miss something, or are vasectomies now 100% paid for by insurance as well? Do insurance companies pay for condoms for men? No? So where is this "charge women more" bullshit coming from?



This is a joke. Birth control isn't a preventative care service like a pap smear or a mammary examination. You don't want to get pregnant, don't ****, or use a condom. Sex is a choice. Getting sick is not. Last I checked, birth control won't stop the spread of STDs. Condoms do. That being the case, wouldn't it make more sense to make insurance companies pay for condoms?



Our government is filled with fucking retards.

Not everyone is you. People are irresponsible and will screw birth control or not. Sometimes the government does have to at least try to save the people from themselves.



How would you feel if the government covered this cost instead of forcing it on private insurance?



Although I do agree that the target audience, which is low/no income women, probably wont be responsible in taking birth control free or otherwise.



For some people pumping out babies is just like whatever, whereas more responsible people view it as a life altering experience that requires thought and planning.



again, i dont know what the answer to unwanted pregnancies is, at least they are trying. Telling people "Dont have sex" obviously isnt working.

 

[supraman]

Not everyone is you. People are irresponsible and will screw birth control or not. Sometimes the government does have to at least try to save the people from themselves.



How would you feel if the government covered this cost instead of forcing it on private insurance?



Although I do agree that the target audience, which is low/no income women, probably wont be responsible in taking birth control free or otherwise.



For some people pumping out babies is just like whatever, whereas more responsible people view it as a life altering experience that requires thought and planning.



again, i dont know what the answer to unwanted pregnancies is, at least they are trying. Telling people "Dont have sex" obviously isnt working.

No it doesn't. Government is not responsible for the individual, the individual is responsible for themselves. The answer to unwanted pregnancies is to make the parents deal with the damn problem, then maybe the rest will wise up. If not still not the government's problem.

 

[supraman]

http://mises.org/daily/5496/The-Economics-of-US-Healthcare



Has to do with the economics of government healthcare. Sorta relevant

 

[Pez68]

What's pathetic is how short-sighted our government is. If I'm looking at this proposal, there's no fucking way I approve it. The negatives far outweigh the positives. What, exactly, are they trying to accomplish by forcing PRIVATE INSURANCE companies to pay for women's birth control? I don't get it.



1) More women on birth control = more unprotected sex = more STDs. More cervical cancer, etc.



2) Insurance companies paying 100% of birth control = increased costs to insurance companies = rate increases to employers and beneficiaries.



3) The number of unplanned pregnancies this prevents will likely be very minimal. People having sex are either responsible, or they're not. Providing women with free birth control is no guarantee they will take it, or even get it.



4) In what way does this reduce costs to taxpayers, or the government? All it does is increase costs to those that have to pay for their insurance. As was pointed out, Medicaid already pays for birth control.



5) More government intervention where it is completely unnecessary.



Again, those running this country are fucking Special person.

 

[klemmer]

Good to know, but I assume the same goes for the equivalent surgeries for women. Not really birth control anyways, but an elective surgery. I imagine the coverage for those is entirely dependent on the insurance company.

Nope.



Vasectomy is done in the doctor's office, while tube tying is done at a hospital or surgical center, which adds much more to the cost.



Cost is the biggest reason I had it done instead of Becky.