Not at all. Look at the services for children: a lot of them are unrelated to disease prevention. The same goes for some of the counseling services for adults and benefits like depression screening, folic acid for pregnant women, tobacco use screening, and “well-woman visits to get recommended services for women under 65.”
Perhaps if Republicans stopped advocating so many policies that would suck for women, it wouldn’t be such a thing.
In many cases they need to be taken regularly for years on end. The costs add up.
Not even sure how to respond to this. Do you believe “war on women” has a definitive meaning, beyond being a convenient political sound bite? What might be a reasonable inference from my posts? Maybe, “People who oppose certain pet causes for the Dems, such as free contraceptives, are demonized and described as having no other motive than hostility to women’s well being. This certainly is fodder for that blather.” I do think women are great, though. Some of them, anyway.
I didn’t say it was okay. I actually oppose ACA without many reservations. I did say this aspect wasn’t playing to the base or pandering to those who weep for their version of women’s causes. On account of, um, it isn’t for women (for one thing) and I’m not aware that abdominal aortic aneurysm screenings for men are a pet cause for, well, anyone.
Not sure I need to defend this at all. Where did I say such a sweeping statement? I said, essentially, that “no co-pays for contraceptives” was largely a politically motivated decision.
I certainly have a problem with some women. What do you think this one meant, BTW? I can’t tell. Can you tell me what aspect of my posts it accurately summarizes?
All the medications on the list are for what is traditionally considered preventive care.
Using your logic (which isn’t bad logic, btw) all kinds of medications prevent bigger problems. Antibiotics can prevent an accidental cut or unwanted dog bite from turning into a deadly infection, emergency visit or even amputation. All very expensive. Antidepressants can prevent illegal drug abuse and suicide, both with enormous public health consequences, not to mention the toll depression has on families and relationships. I’ve already mentioned anti-seizure medications. Anyone of us here can think of countless examples without much effort.
Are we talking about preventing disease? Because unwanted or not, a pregnancy is not a disease. And, though it’s unpopular to say, is COMPLETELY preventable without a pill (aside, of course, from rape.)
Or are we talking about cost benefits? Because there are actual diseases that are NOT preventable without medication that are more expensive than childbirth.
What makes birth control so much more important than those that users can’t be expected to make even the smallest copay?
Fine. The pill is on a short list of medications that must be provided free-of-charge. Why it and not any number of other medications that treat or prevent actual diseases or conditions that aren’t caused by behavior.
I also agree that contraception should not be part of a government mandated level of coverage. I think it’s a good idea, but it’s not something which should be a mandated part of the coverage. I think the Dr’s visit should be covered to talk about it, but not the transaction at the pharmacy.
To be clear, I’m talking about when the drug or device is used just to prevent pregnancy for convenience reasons. I don’t think condoms, foam, sponges, IUD’s, BC pills etc used as a convenient way to prevent pregnancy should be part of the government mandated coverage. If they are used for an actual medical condition or to prevent illness, then that’s fine. But not when it’s only for contraception.
As an example, consider finasteride. It can be used to treat baldness or blood pressure. ACA should cover it when it’s prescribed for blood pressure but not for baldness. The BC medications should be the same way. If it’s used to prevent bad periods, reduce the risk for cancer, etc, then it should be covered.
ACA made a huge mistake to include contraception coverage. It gives the critics a huge target to legitimately attack. It would be like if gym memberships had to be covered. If they didn’t say anything about contraception, then Dr’s could just code the treatment as a medical condition like an irregular period or something. But now all the critics have this big hook to hang their lawsuits off of which may end up damaging other parts of the ACA.
Canard or not, it’s no less true. And, let’s be real. The pill isn’t free because it prevents endometriosis. If that’s all it did, it probably wouldn’t be free. Several women in my family are on hormone treatment that’s WAY, WAY more effective than the pill and they’re not getting it for free.
You’re insisting it should be free because of the cost and health benefits it provides. Fine. Should all medications that provide legitimate cost and health benefits also be provided free-of-charge?
We are talking about preventative care. Antibiotics are not preventative Who needs anti-seizure medication unless they have a condition already? Antidepressants are given to people who have a condition. None of the things you mention involve prevention, they are treatment. Serious question, do you understand what preventative care is?
The decision was made to have preventative care covered at no extra cost (for the reasons I mentioned earlier and probably others). Regardless of anyones feelings on the subject, contraception is preventative, therefore it gets included.
Pretty good question, and there’s no obvious answer other than the one Stratocaster gave: it’s a purely political decision by the Obama Administration, which desperately needs to get the Democratic ‘base’ to the polls in November. At the moment, things aren’t looking terribly good for the Democrats.
As I mentioned in this thread, most forms of birth control cost money under Obamacare. That’s because they’re prescription medications, and thus any woman who wants one needs to see a doctor, and most doctor visits cost money. So if the Democrats who are howling about the Hobby Lobby decision actually cared at all about “access to birth control”, and actually believed that it was horrible for any woman to have to pay a small amount to get birth control, they would be addressing the cost of a doctor’s visit. (Or perhaps just making birth control pills over-the-counter.) But I don’t see the Democrats even attempting to do this. Logical conclusion: Democrats couldn’t care less how much women have to pay for birth control. Their bleating about the contraception mandate and related court cases is purely political, and entirely dishonest.
Of course there’s not the slightest evidence that any woman anywhere in the country is having any difficulty affording birth control, much less that any woman using her employer’s insurance offerings is having such trouble. Further evidence that for the Democrats it’s dishonest and all for show.
I’m sure Congressional Republicans would fall over themselves in a rush to support measures that reduced the cost of birth control. That would fit perfectly with their agenda.
I noted in the other thread that regular preventative care visits are normally at no cost. (I checked Kaiser and Blue Cross since they are the largest in CA)
BC pills from a doctor aren’t the only option for birth control. There are many other forms of BC that don’t need regular doctor visits or doctor visits at all.
That’s why it shouldn’t have been included. There are many other reasonable options for BC other than doctor prescribed methods. If there is a medical reason that BC pills are the only viable form of contraception available to her, then likely it’s for a medical reason and would be covered anyway.
We’ve already been around this part of the discussion. I’ve made it clear I understand the definition of preventive care. My question goes beyond that. Why is the government interested in preventive care? To reduce the cost of healthcare, right? Why should maintenance medications be excluded just because they’re not classified as preventive? Glaucoma drops are a lot less expensive than blindness. Statins are less expensive than heart disease. Thyroid treatment is less expensive than everything it treats.
Cost is a factor, improving overall health is another. One goal is to focus more on health care as opposed to ‘sick’ care. Working to prevent health problems, or identify them early leads to a healthier population. There are factors like work productivity. If you can help someone prevent…say cardiovascular problems then they will be at work more often, benefiting the economy as a whole.
Calling out preventative care to be fully covered creates an easy to identify part of overall health care that has a lot of benefit. If you expand it to treatment, how do you define it? Should they just say “all treatment must be covered at no out of pocket cost”?
It’s not a perfect system by any means, but encouraging people to get a physical, be tested for common, chronic problems and work to NOT get them is a huge plus.
Maybe this is a better question: Why do insurance companies need a mandate to provide contraception for free? From a purely financial standpoint they should want to pay for as few births as possible.
What do you think this one meant, BTW? I can’t tell. Can you tell me what aspect of my posts it accurately summarizes?