UHC
In those European countries where the Pill, IUDs, etc are “free”, they’re not “free”: they’re “free (or pay a %) with presctiption”, “free from the UHC organization”; a woman can’t just walk into a pharmacy, ask for a box of the Pill and get one given like it was candy in a parade. If I get a IUD from a public hospital in Spain, it’s “free”; if I go to a private obgyn for it, I pay for the visit and the device. But UHC makes those methods available for every woman in the country.
This does not even deny you the ability to buy insurance that covers birth control, let alone the right. You might not be able to get the tax benefits that come from buying health insurance as part of your employment package, but that’s because the Democrats are morons. Either the approach I had argued for - expanding the employer-funded health insurance tax deduction to cover individually purchased health insurance - or McCain’s - giving people money to spend on whatever health insurance provider they liked - would have fixed this flaw.
Hell, here’s another approach that is better than this ridiculous mandate: just fucking subsidise it. That’s what you’re doing anyway, so just cut the insurance industry out of the loop and do it the honest way instead of pretending that it’s insurance.
True, I should’ve been more clear. And it’s not completely free of charge for the recipient in all countries. It’s free in the UK, but in the Netherlands you pay about a tenner for 6 months.
I was also thinking: although it’s probably pretty easy to come by some free condoms if you really want them, I wouldn’t know where to get them. They were definitely not distributed in university dorms or anything like that. So in the US they distribute free condoms but not hormonal BC and have a higher rate of unwanted pregnancy, while in Europe it’s probably cheaper to use hormonal BC and there are less unwanted pregnancies. Of course, it could be a cultural thing, but it might point out how ineffective the method of handing out condoms is in preventing unplanned pregnancies.
Yes, condoms are easily accessible.
But they are only 85-88% effective.
Access to 98-100% effective methods of birth control can be a little more difficult to come by. I have an IUD. I also have really good insurance, but my insurance did not cover the IUD. I had to come up with nearly $1000 cash out of pocket to get the damn thing, and I had to call more than a dozen doctors before I could find one who would put one in an unmarried woman who has no kids.
Then there’s the issue of trying to get men to actually use the condoms. I’d say more whine “But then I can’t feeeeeeel anything” than not. To which the appropriate answer is, “Good, now you’ll know how I feel.”
Also: married women use birth control. Does anyone know if it’s been verified that all of these female law students who need the pill are all unmarried? Why is it assumed they’re just sluts and not married and trying to space out their children/plan their families according to what they can or cannot afford?
Although it’s a fair point, I don’t really want to see it verified. It’s nobody’s fucking business why a woman wants bc.
Why would Muslim employers care? Their Muslim employees would presumably not get that surgery, and they should have no objection if the non -Muslim employees took advantage of that benefit.
So would UHC, but Republicans are morons.
The way it stands now, the vast majority of people are insured through their employers as part of their compensation package. My employer has no more right to choose what medications my insurance should cover than they do to choose how I spend any other part of my compensation.
Just in case you don’t actually see the argument being made here, let me say this:
Why would Catholic employers care? Their Catholic employees would presumably not get that surgery, and they should have no objection if the non -Catholic employees took advantage of that benefit.
(The benefit is question is women’s contraceptive coverage that actually saves net insurance money.)
I see. Over the past few weeks I’ve heard everyone from Democratic Senators to SDMB users telling me that the purpose of Obama’s rule change is to provide “access to birth control” or the “right to birth control” or something like that. Now you’re telling me that this isn’t the purpose and that everyone already has access to birth control; the real purpose is to allow some folks to switch from one method of birth control to a more expensive one. If so, why couldn’t proponents of the rule change make that clear from the start?
Why is it silly? If a significant number of women had said that they had an unwanted pregnancy because they lacked access to birth control, surely the CDC would have included that among the answers.
You spelled “effective” wrong.
Unfortunately, your employer is who makes that decision, not the insurance company. When companies go shopping for medical coverage, the providers give them a list of what all could be covered, including meds. Employers pick and choose what they are willing to pay for.
Example: My sister has lost 160 pounds. She has very large folds of excess skin that get rashes and cause mobility problems. Her last insurance carrier was willing to pay for the excess skin removal if it could be documented that she needed it for medical reasons (improved mobility, skin rashes, infections etc.). Her employer switched carriers at open enrollment this year. The new carrier does not cover the surgery under any circumstances. She wrote a letter to her employer asking them to reconsider the decision.
No I didn’t. I wrote the word “expensive” and spelled it correctly. If you’d like to answer the question that I asked, feel free to do so.
I’m also wondering, if condoms are so ineffective, then why do various levels of government and non-profits spend put so much effort into making them available at no cost and browbeating children and adults into using them? But perhaps that question belongs in a different thread.
Nobody is being “browbeaten” into using condoms. Since the question is invalid, there is no need to start a new thread about it.
Yes. People like DianaG have apparently awarded themselves a “right” to legally force their employer to make certain decisions regarding the insurance their employer purchases, but for some reason we only hear about this “right” being employed to force employers to pay for birth control. There’s no movement to force employers to pay for a vast array of other medical procedures, including some that save lives. Why not?
Furthermore, Obama’s new rules on insurance mandates don’t apply to all employers. Most notably they don’t cover employers with fewer than fifty employees. Yet neither DianaG nor Senator Murray nor anyone else is throwing a hissy fit about these small employers supposedly denying employees their “rights”. Why is that? Inquiring minds want to know!
I think that question belongs in a different reality. 85% to 88% effective is a hell of a lot more than 0% to 0% effective. I really can’t believe you even asked that question, except as some sort of sly gotcha bullshit.
I missed the news about children being browbeaten into using condoms.
Lack of access to effective BC is an issue affecting “access to birth control”.
And this was clear from the start, again this is from the study of the panel that made the original recommendation to require contraceptive coverage. Not only that, but I specifically have pointed this out to you before, citing the same panel. So your pretending that it hasn’t been discussed in these terms before is pretty weak.
STD prevention.
Can Muslim employers refuse to their portion of the social security tax because the funds will be used to buy Government bonds that pay interest?
That an argument against employer-provided health insurance generally, not against mandating that insurers cover birth control.
Because they’re better than nothing. Don’t be dense.
It’s interesting to see how deeply rooted the Republican party lie about this being about forcing religious institutions to cover birth control is.
This is about businesses owned by churches that work in the secular realm providing insurance that includes birth control. The fact that the Obama admin. tweaked it to force the Insurers to cover the birth control at no cost, not the religious employers is all any sane person could want.
The Catholic Bishops simply want to be able to force people to live by their rules. That’s evil if you ask me.