<p>Zoozer has asked this question, politely but assertively several times. Several pages back there are a number of posts with precisely this question. If the posters’ who base their ‘right to co-pay free BC’ state that the basis of this is because it is preventative medicine, then please be address the issue of why all other preventative drugs are not ‘free’. And yes, making all others ‘free’ would cause a painful jump in premiums, but again, if the defense is ‘so what… it is my lawful right because it is preventative’ then there should be outrage at the unfair law which excludes others. </p>
<p>I won’t direct this to any specific posters since that would probably seem aggressive…but if you’ve been claiming for the past few days that BC is different because it is preventative…you must …for intellectual honesty’s sake…answer this question. Then again, silence is an answer…the answer being ‘because I want it and i frigging well deserve it so you all just be quite and get in line’.</p>
<p>I just looked up the most prescribed medications in the U. S. None are BC. So in terms of doing the most good for the most people, the ‘free’ mandate should instead be for:</p>
<p>All medical care and drugs, whether preventative or not, ought to have a co-pay, even if minimal. Everyone must bear some responsibility for their health. Its bizarre that the government can order private businesses to not charge for an optional service.</p>
<p>This is not accurate when applied to observant Jews. Of course it depends on the philosophy of one’s stream, but many Orthodox groups do approve of the use of artificial birth control, at least in some circumstances. The Talmud contemplates this technology. Within most groups, where there is a pattern of very large families, it’s a choice involving cultural and political considerations. It’s not a result of banning birth control. This is also true, by the way, of Mormon culture. Birth control is accepted – there are other reasons why devout families tend to be large.</p>
<p>I’d like to see all preventive prescriptions provided without co-pay. Like Bay, I think incentives are important. When something is perceived to be without cost, because it is paid for in advance, people use more of it. I think we ought to be incentivizing prevention instead of cure.</p>
<p>I don’t view it as irresponsible to pay a flat rate instead of by the piece. If I buy unlimited cell phone minutes instead of a usage plan, is that irresponsible? I’m still responsible for my own health as long as my doctor and I are free to make the best decision for me.</p>
<p>dietz-- I have and will answer it. BC isn’t just preventative in the sense that it decreases a health risk to the woman from being pregnant and giving birth. BC is about deciding that you don’t want to bring another life into being.</p>
<p>Please provide me with any comparable medicine or “condition.” As I said, once born you are somewhat “on your own” to prolong your life.</p>
<p>Birth control is like ins.
You could also argue the point that - say thyroid meds is also ins, because if they aren’t available, then subsequent health care is more expensive.</p>
<p>When birth control is funded we have the potential to save hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially if the child/mother have health risks. ( and considering USA has very high rate of premature birth & maternal mortality this isn’t rare)
Covering birth control seems pretty cost effective.</p>
<p>07DAD: you have presented a twist to the topic by stating BC is not just preventative…which is true. However, if we want to address the issue fully…BC pills are not only means by which one can avoid bringing another life into the world. My over the counter NSAID which I pay for will take care of arthritis pain and a headache …but I may PREFER the prescription version. But that doesn’t put the prescription version into a special class.</p>
<p>I agree that it is cost effective to cover BC pills, I agree that it should be affordable (with a minimum co-pay) heck…I think for some it should be mandated that they take the thing! </p>
<p>This service/prescription is provided by many many providers. At issue is whether or not an organization who has always made clear its’ stance on the issue can and should be forced to go against its own moral code.</p>
<p>The arguments given avoid the real reason for wanting this exception to the exclusion of all other preventative drugs. It is a highly political and personal philosophical issue. Those arguing the ‘make if free everywhere because it is special’ POV are obfuscating their own philosophy (we want it, it is our right and everyone must implement a system which supports my POV and my danged right oh and MY POV is better and more correct and therefore supercedes yours) BTW - until very recent history BC pills have not been covered to any degree by most policies. </p>
<p>In the end it is a clashing of philosophical differences and what concerns me is that unlike in a philosophy class where differences can exist, this difference is being resolved by mandate. The tyranny of the majority (which is questionable as to whether there is a majority) has been implemented over the minority. And THAT is a frightening slippery slope upon which to be hiking.</p>
<p>No – what puts the prescription version into a special class is that a medical doctor has agreed that you need it. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be prescribed. Most health plans will cover the prescription, but not the OTC meds. The difference is the judgment of the doctor PLUS the patient that the med is necessary, vs. the patient’s judgment alone sufficing for the OTC.</p>
<p>For contraception only purposes, BC pills are a preference to OTC methods. It is a more convenient method by far, it is a preferable method for many…but it is by no means ‘necessary’. A patient will ask a physician for the prescription, just as a patient may ask for the 600mg 1 pill prescription version of tylenol. And they make their co-pay for that choice.</p>
<p>If an insurance company wants to incentivize its insureds to use birth control because it is cheaper than childbirth, by not charging a co-pay, it makes sense as a business decision. The idea that the government should be requiring the incentive by law seems…Big Brother-ish?</p>
<p>samurai: haha very true words. But regretfully, in our I want it now and I want it free I demand instant gratification society, long range thinking is not encouraged.</p>
<p>Zoozermom: exactly…I was hesitant to say this because it sounds ‘political’ but it was precisely what I meant by hiking on the slippery slope.</p>
<p>Nothing has the same consequences as not using birth control. It needs to be as easy to get as absolutely possible. I’m fine with it being over the counter. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is one of the most important goals we can have as a society.</p>
That’s not what I meant. I meant consequences yet to come when other mandates are easy to insitgate. Perhaps mandates that don’t make the current White House occupant’s supporters happy.</p>
<p>Completely agree - make it OTC - and include in each package the instructions for how to use it as an emergency/morning after pill. Pharmacists tend to know more about drugs and drug reactions/interactions than most physicians anyway…they’d be a good source of info.</p>
<p>I know you didn’t mean that. My post wasn’t in response to yours. The use of the “consequences” was coincidental. </p>
<p>Some states are already mandating interesting things. Virginia is the latest in the effort to require women to get an ultrasound prior to an abortion. Not sure if they will mandate insurance coverage or use the expense as a way to restrict abortions.</p>
<p>I don’t really have a problem with contraception, it just annoys me that employed adults shouldn’t contribute to all of their medications. Now, if we were talking about the truly poor I would say something else, but if you’ve got a job, you can make choices.</p>
<p>^^^ The more short-sighted someone is, the worse she is at prioritizing and planning for the long term, the more I want her to have birth control at hand at no cost.</p>
<p>Why would you assume that a person holding a job with benefits is short-sighted? Again, we are not talking about poor teenagers here. It’s a totally different population. And if a person can’t be trusted to obtain birth control, can she be trusted to obtain insulin, synthroid, other important medications?</p>