Note that reproductive health prescriptions are covered under most health insurance, it is only birth control that is an issue due to fundamentalists.
They do cover Viagra, this is why your number of employee’s is just a red herring, the desire to limit access has NOTHING to do with anything but the desire of one groups desire to force their beliefs on their employees.
The government has decided that all health-insurance needs to provided a minimum of service. Birth control for no copay is one of those minimums.
This is a good idea because fully half the population has a need for it. And men don’t purchase any birth control drugs.
Which do not have the health benefits of hormonal contraceptives, nor the efficacy rate for preventing pregnancy. Given that 60+% of those who use hormonal contraceptives do so because they do more than preventing pregnancy, bringing condoms into the equation is muddying the waters, at best.
Start with its commonality. Second, that HC is the primary treatment for dysmennorhea, which is the leading cause of school/work absenteeism for women under 30. Third, that the real end goal is to change the fact that 1/2 of pregnancies in this country are unplanned, which is not only financially problematic, but also manifests in our disproportionately high rates (given our medical advances and the extreme predominance of hospital birth) of infant and maternal morbidity and mortality. It’s hard to draw such a bright line of correlation in other areas of medicine; this one has been identified, so now it’s being addressed.
The PPACA has a number of requirements in addition to not charging a copay for birth control. Preventitive care and screenings can’t require a copay or deductible (and I would argue that birth control is preventitive care). Pre-existing conditions can’t be denied coverage. Most notably for you, PPACA requires mental health parity for insurance.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2010/11/04/mental-health-coverage-expanded-ppaca/
In other words, though you have some valid questions like why it’s not all or nothing for prescription copay, you’re completely wrong that people don’t care about coverage of anything else. In fact, the ones that are single-minded are those who single out birth control among the many things that aren’t allowed to include a copay.
She phrased it wrong, but the rule isn’t about free birth control.
I was sure that would be the response. She said “You know what would make me happy? Free birth control.” But of course she doesn’t really want free birth control.
I’m not supposing that I know her inner motivations and heartfelt desires; I’m going on what she said very clearly in a public forum. You’re assuming she actually has a much more rational position and “phrased it wrong.” Maybe there are some folks on your side who aren’t as well reasoned and rational as you. Certainly got plenty of those on my side.
Well they should! Giving kids tetanus vaccines just encourages them to run around barefoot and step on nails. Responsible children, knowing that they were not vaccinated wouldn’t waste their time playing and stuff. Why does the government want to turn kids into play sluts? At least, take videos of children playing in empty lots and send them to Rush.
Well, it seems those that those practicing birth control and having fewer children are the ones making the reasonable arguments. Possible exception Rush of course.
The birthcontrol isn’t free, because it’s a part of insurance. And as I said upthread, the government doesn’t pay for insurance unless you’re indigent.
I assume the girl is talking about the rule at hand, and not some hypothetical free birth control program. Remember, the Republicans have lied about the issue, calling it free birthcontrol in order to demonize it and spark anger in their base.
If the girl used the language that the right has been propagating, that’s a testament to how pervasive their dishonesty is, not a reflection of the actual issue.
I post my understanding of the issue and give cites to back it up. You disagree and use sarcasm and attitude to back yourself up.
And I don’t understand the anger. I wasn’t criticizing the administration’s decision. Just stating my understanding and quoting three mainstream news organizations as cites.
Like I said, to some degree it’s semantics. If I was a woman and went to the pharmacy to pick up my birth control pill and didn’t have to pay anything out of pocket, it would seem free to me, even though I’m just paying for it through my now slightly higher premiums to avoid paying a copay.
I do understand everybody’s point though, it probably would be more accurate for the media to say “no copay” instead of “free”.
And for the record I’m happy with Obama’s compromise.
Fox News Headline: Nobody is Happy with Obama Compromise!
Or the girl was a plant by the Romney campaign to ask a stupid question and give him the opportunity for a sound bite that the right-wingers would lap up.
I’m usually the person in the “shit happens” camp and not the conspiracy camp, but a setup here would not surprise me at all.
Correction: Aspirin is on the must cover list, not the no co-pay list.
The question must be asked of** ITR champion**, why is prescription contraception different from:
[
](Shining a Light on Health Insurance Rate Increases | CMS)
Or do you object to these services being mandated to not require co-pay? If so, why the focus on contraception?
Also keep in mind that this was a Q&A at a campaign rally. Questioners got about 10-15 seconds max to get their queries at and were being constantly prompted to hurry themselves up. So she, like the media, shorthanded the issue. More telling was Romney’s response, and even more telling than that, was his response to a question asked later:
This was not 15 minutes after he also said that he’d repeal “Obamacare.” So he’d defund Planned Parenthood, do away with PPACA, say he’s not the “free” birth control guy and then glibly say “get your medical care wherever you want, it’s a free society.” And if you don’t have the cash on hand and can’t get insurance? Oh well sucks to be you, I guess. What a jack wagon.
Romney went on to explain, “I don’t see why people are making such a big deal out of paying for medical expenses out of pocket. Most medical procedures only cost ten or twenty thousand dollars. That’s not a big deal…what?..really?..okay, if you say so…I’ve just been informed by my aides that ten or twenty thousand dollars is a significant sum to most people.”
Congratulations, you found one. If I look and ask, I could find someone in that audience that thinks Obama should be assassinated. But for me to use that example to claim that Republicans are calling for Obama’s assassination would be stupid. Just because individual people might want free birth control doesn’t mean that the current societal controversy is about free birth control.
Just so the pedant in you is satisfied - the overall thrust (heh) of the argument about this issue is not free birth control (even though some people might think they deserve that), but not allowing employers to make medical decisions for their employees based on those employers’ personal morals. The argument is that women’s medical decisions should not depend on whether or not their employer feels that it’s okay for women to use hormonal birth control, but should depend on the doctor and the woman making that decision together, as covered by health care, in the same way that men are allowed to make their medical decisions as covered by their health care.
So as to preserve the analogy, you’d have to find someone in a Democratic audience that thinks Obama should be assassinated. Which they’d probably be less likely to admit.
ITR champion should be very concerned since what is being proposed would allow his employer to not cover anti-depressants on their insurance plan.
All the business has to do is convert to Scientology!
CMC fnord!
I’m not sure you were able to comprehend my original post because you are not contradicting anything in it, bud.