<p>
</p>
<p>Another vote for this one. Also, I’d want to know why it cost my D $120 for one month without insurance?</p>
<p>Despite widespread use of birth control (remember the oft-cited 98% figure for “Catholics”), half of all pregnancies are unintended. Half. The low-hanging fruit of cost savings from contraceptives – conscientious users with incentives not to conceive – has long since been picked, and insurance companies are already reaping the benefits of their contraceptive use without picking up the entire cost. That’s why insurance companies – which are extremely motivated to save themselves money – don’t generally provide birth control at no cost to their customers, and why the government decided that a mandate was necessary. Because, you know, insurance companies just don’t know what is in their best financial interests without HHS showing them the light. </p>
<p>it’s astounding that the media keeps on buying this “it saves money” nonsense. If it’s so cost-effective, why doesn’t the federal government provide free contraceptives directly, without involving employers and their insurance companies? Let all the taxpayers who allegedly support the mandate put their money where their mouths are, and pay for it themselves.</p>
<p>The more short-sighted someone is, the less likely that she will be able to use oral contraceptives correctly. Keeping them with her. Taking them at the same time. Every day. No matter if they make her gain weight, or diminish her libido, or make her feel sick. No matter whether she thinks that she’s kicked out her boyfriend so won’t be needing them anymore. Remembering to get refills before she runs out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe because the need for these ultrasounds isn’t health-related; it’s ideological. The new law requires a medically unnecessary procedure, even against the wishes of both patient and doctor. </p>
<p>I wonder what happens if the patient turns her head away during the procedure, thus not seeing what the law wants her to see? Will then there be a law requiring her to watch the ultrasound? Isn’t that the next step down this insane road?</p>
<p>Ooh, I’ve got a great idea for a march on the VA capitol - women in blindfolds.</p>
<p>“Why would you assume that a person holding a job with benefits is short-sighted?”</p>
<p>I’m not. You said, if you’ve got a job, you can make choices. Sure you can…unless you’re short-sighted and irresponsible. And if you are, well, I’d like to help you delay parenthood for a while. </p>
<p>You and I would prioritize birth control over almost everything else if we knew we weren’t ready for a baby. The cost would be nearly irrelevant, because we think ahead, and we know an unplanned pregnancy is vastly more expensive. It’s the folks who don’t have their priorities in order that I’m worried about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since we have opened the door to D.C. central issued mandates the answer to that question will be who is doing the mandating…Currently…if I had to guess…the mandate would be to disallow this procedure/law for all states. If there is an ideological change later this year…then it can be 9re)mandated that the patient must agree to watch the procedure. And…there in lies the beauty of the mandate so many here are supporting.</p>
<p>
I worry about other people smoking, too, but I’m not sure we should mandate the lifestyle choices we think are appropriate. I can grudgingly accept that young people and those who can’t afford the pills should get some help, but I have a problem with employed adults being unable to handle co-payments. To me, that is the embodiment of the nanny state. But, as I said earlier, I’m a much bigger supporter of condoms because I worry a lot about the spread of diesease. I’ve been reading this week about drug-resistant gonorrhea and it scares the dickens out of me.</p>
<p>Many of you keep referencing the fact that we’re talking about people who are employed.</p>
<p>No, we aren’t necessarily talking about adults with jobs. The member of the health insurance plan is clearly employed; but remember that health plans don’t just cover the member, but also cover the member’s family.</p>
<p>We could be talking about a minimum wage janitor with two teenage children. Now think about birth control pills that could cost upwards of $1,000 per year, per person. That’s a boatload of money for a minimum wage family.</p>
<p>
Co-payments, hayden, co-payments. Not full cost. No one is advocating that here. We are asking why people should be responsible for the co-payments for some drugs and not birth control pills. That’s all.</p>
<p>I’m guessing that your janitor doesn’t live in NYC!</p>
<p>I see a significant difference between the government mandating the availability of a drug or procedure and a mandate that the citizens must take the drug or have the procedure. The citizens option to decline to take the drug or have the procedure does away with the slippery slope. </p>
<p>We already have a precedent for mandating a drug be used in vaccination laws as a prerequisite to admission to public schools. That slope may be slippery but it applies to everyone. As pointed out, the ultra-sound requirement has nothing to do with public safety or even the abortion procedure.</p>
<p>
…with available opt-outs based on parental religious or health concerns. And, as of yet we do not hav a mandate that adults MUST take a flu vaccine…now…maybe we need to get moving on that one.</p>
<p>^ The full cost applies in those instances where an insurer/ employer would refuse to cover BC at all.</p>
<p>If there’s a co-pay, obviously the cost goes down. But lots of you keep saying that the employed adult could afford to pay something. What if the employee doesn’t even know? and and teenage/college girl doesn’t have much money. There might even be cases where the parent doesn’t know the doctor perscribed the BC to their child.</p>
<p>I’m just pointing out that most of you keep referring to adults with jobs, while there is nothing that relegates this discussion to employees, since all girls/women in the covered family are potential patients.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d be interested in your argument in support of that. Care to give it a go?</p>
<p>
They can’t refuse.</p>
<p>
If the child is getting the pills free under through the empoyer’s insurance, the parents will know if they choose to look at their insurance records. We’re not talking about making it possible for someone to walk into a clinic and get the pills anonymously, we’re specifically talking about the insurance mandate to employers.</p>
<p>You can keep setting up these scenarios, but it still doesn’t explain why birth control pills should be elevated above other medications and even above condoms. If a daughter can’t openly receive benefits under the health plan of her family, then that really shouldn’t be the employer’s problem. Employers shouldn’t be paying for family dysfunction. There has to be a line somewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The drug and procedure is available whether one’s insurance company covers it or not. The mandate is over who must pay for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The defense of the current mandate is because it is for the common and greater good. What could be more important than forcefully stopping an epidemic/pandemic before it starts (co-pay free of course). Once you have established that behavior can be mandated (mandate the church to provided a service - for free)…the door is open for interpretation. It will just take the right - or wrong individual to take that next step. THERE LIES THE PROBLEM WITH MANDATES! Who gets to choose?</p>
<p>And, no, you have not shown why BC is any different than other preventative meds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes we have.</p>
<p>“We could be talking about a minimum wage janitor with two teenage children. Now think about birth control pills that could cost upwards of $1,000 per year, per person. That’s a boatload of money for a minimum wage family.”</p>
<p>Planned Parenthood tells us that a month’s supply of pills runs between $15-50. So, somewhere between 50 cents and $1.50 per day. Less than smokers (who are disproportionately from families like the hypothetical janitor) pay for cigarettes. Less than the monthly cost of many cellphone plans. Less than many people pay for things like soda, beer, junk food, and hairstyling. Yes, even poor people. And even the Guttmacher Institute doesn’t claim that “I cannot afford them” is the most common reason that sexually active women don’t take birth control pills.</p>
<p>
No, you haven’t. Straw men have been set up, questions avoided repeatedly.
The only person I will give credit to is actually you because you are the only one who will admit that this mandate was passed because it is the priority of the victor of the last presidential election. But on the merits, the argument still hasn’t been made. Because it can’t be. It’s just a matter of personal priorities.</p>