<p>No, it’s not “relatively new practice” at all.</p>
<p>^^Yes, it is in my state. Most all of my married years, BC or the IUD were not covered. Also, in regard to an above post, Viagra, etc. have never been paid for by our formulary either.</p>
<p>I particularly do not approve of my tax dollars paying for Viagra for old geezers while women of child-bearing age cannot get birth control.</p>
<p>:p</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you would find a lot of support for that position, regardless of whether the person is a ‘geezer’ or not. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>mommusic- I’m pushing the “like” button for this post.</p>
<p>(also for bluebayou)</p>
<p>RE: coverage of BC by HS plans</p>
<p>
. Um, yes it is. Kids are 17 and 20. While on BC pills those many years ago I was employed by a large silicon valley company which regularly appeared in all those ‘best employer’ books… usually in the top 5. And…I had a $25.00 monthly copay. My office visit copay was $5.00 with no deductible. Pretty much all other prescriptions (generic, formulary, non-formulary) were covered at a 0 or $5.00 copay.</p>
<p>When I was in college - back before fossil fuels… before the internet, before cell phones, before open access and knowledge regarding the subject - somehow even though I was at what would be considered podunk U - somehow WE were able to figure out how to take 2 buses to PPH, in a sketchy part of town - and do what we needed to do - and still make it to class. I worry about individuals who can’t figure out how to take a bus. As for the ‘Free’ - your PPH contribution is what you can afford. Give them $10.00/month… it’s the cost of one meal out with buddies.</p>
<p>If you are going to a Catholic U. you presumably know the the party line. If not, they you didn’t do your homework. Being surprised by this issues is like going to UCB or USCS and being surprised that it is a liberal oriented campus.</p>
<p>Sitting here visiting with DD…she’s at a sophomore at an instate public. The effort it would take to get BC services through her Golden State campus is rather large compared to a free shuttle ride to PPH. She is dropped jawed that anyone would feel entitled to BC access on a Catholic campus. Her tongue in cheek comment - what next - a mandate for bikinis at Islamic schools?</p>
<p>Seems a difficult topic to discuss without being offensive. A fine line between who’s dictating what to whom.</p>
<p>Most of the talk has been about short-term contraception. Is permanent contraception handled differently?. Is coverage for a vasectomy handled differently? Professors at Catholic Us haven’t had this procedure covered?</p>
<p>Anyone know how BYU treats this? The source I found (popular student guide, I don’t have time to dig deeper), says that
“The Student Health Center offers birth control to married couples (or to couples soon to be married), which ranges in price from $12 to $40. The morning-after pill is not available.”</p>
<p>Sterilization would not be covered either, but I have to tell you all that the government-funded health care that we have used for nearly thirty years while hubby was active duty and then retired covers EVERYTHING. Okay, I am sure there are some things that are not covered, but I have never had anything denied.</p>
<p>This morning, very conservative hubby and I were having our normal Saturday morning chat about birth control (lol) and the recent healthcare coverage issue. He is arguing church and state, so I asked him a question. If people are engaging in pre-marital sex, which of course is against church teachings, and an STD is contracted, would church insurance pay for treatment? Questions like these are why I have such a hard time moving through life. I always have to question things.</p>
<p>Good point MDmom. Of course they’d pay for STD treatment! Logic and insurance coverage aren’t always partners. For years my plan wouldn’t pay for cancer screenings–pap smears, mammograms etc, but would pay out the wazoo for cancer treatment. Thankfully that has changed!</p>
<p>Now that several people have mentioned other uses for BCP, I will share that it is also an option for me in my future for perimenopause issues. If I was an employee of one of these campuses and needed it for reasons other than BCP, who are they to ask or tell me what they will or won’t cover when it comes to treatment. As for pharmacists who refuse to prescribe them based on their moral convictions, again, they have no right to know what I’m being prescribed a written prescription for… it may, or may not be for birth control uses; but it could also be for one of many reasons people have listed upthread.</p>
<p>BTW - if anyone had told me two years ago that I might go back on birth control pills at the age of 52, I would have thought them quite ignorant. And I usually consider myself fairly educated when it comes to matters of health care. I had no idea how many women are put on BCP for perimenopause symptoms! I’d always thought, the older you were, the riskier they were. Shows you what I know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I take it you have that on ‘authority’ from someone relatively close to you?
;)</p>
<p>First let me say that contraception is good and necessary. </p>
<p>But religious freedom is one of the basic foundations of our country. The government should not be telling religions what they can and cannot do unless the government has a very strong interest (i. e. we aren’t going to allow human sacrifice). </p>
<p>Asking the Catholic church to provide contraception or abortion is like asking Mormon institutions to provide free wine and coffee or telling the Jewish Homes that they must serve pork. </p>
<p>And then there is the issue of treating different religions differently. The Amish don’t believe in insurance, period. They get a blanket exemption from the healthcare law. So Amish businesses don’t have to provide any insurance at all, but the government is going to tell Catholic charities, colleges, etc. what they have to provide? </p>
<p>There was an article in the paper today (LA Times) about a law student at Fordham who was whining that she didn’t get free BC pills provided. What is the tuition at Fordham? $45,000? And she can’t squeeze out another $20 a month for BC pills?</p>
<p>Yes, and the right for me to not be oppressed by religion is a fundamental right in this country. Religion has too much power.</p>
<p>Those who don’t want a church telling them what to do on healthcare should understand those who don’t want the government telling them what to do on healthcare. (And the church isn’t preventing anyone from doing anything, it’s just who is paying).</p>
<p>Quote:
I particularly do not approve of my tax dollars paying for Viagra…</p>
<hr>
<p>lol…not a big fan of Viagara either…but the argument about V vs BC doesn’t hold. V restores dysfunction. Avoiding pregnancy is not a dysfunction… ;)</p>
<p>=========</p>
<p>TatinG quote:</p>
<p>Those who don’t want a church telling them what to do on healthcare should understand those who don’t want the government telling them what to do on healthcare. (And the church isn’t preventing anyone from doing anything, it’s just who is paying).</p>
<hr>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>It’s about choice and I care a lot more about preserving individual choice over institutional choice. By and large, the institutions take care of themselves. God knows, literally, how well the Catholic church takes care of itself, particularly with regard to preserving its own wealth and power. This is about power, pure and simple. The church is terrified about losing power - always has been. When it comes to choosing between the best interests of followers and self interest, it chooses self, time and time again. Talk about the bully pulpit.</p>
<p>"but the government is going to tell Catholic charities, colleges, etc. what they have to provide?’</p>
<p>Fine, but let’s be clear that in 28 states - mostly what we think of as conservative states - they already do so. In 8 of those states, there is no exemption for churches either. Hundreds of Catholic charities, colleges, hospitals, and health systems provide this coverage to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of employees, in defiance of Pope, bishops, and preachers.</p>
<p>Isn’t this really an issue of employment law? The government on all levels gets involved in areas of employment and they make rules all the time. Nowhere are they making anyone violate their religion. I also read that most major Catholic Universities already offer coverage to their employees for bc etc.
How does this law require any individual Catholic to violate church doctrine?</p>