<p>mom2collegekids–but is that “function” necessary to life, no. Why is that considered important enough to cover and birth control is not? That is the point. If you want to go dysfunction vs dysfunction, my hearing aids are not covered by insurance but “some old geezer” can get Viagra?</p>
<p>Rutgers, I had missed that Santorum favors giving states the right to ban birth control! Talk about government control!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But what I think some posters are saying here is that BCP are not used just for contraception. Are you proposing that Catholic institutions have the right to deny BCP coverage for people using it for reasons other than contraception?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No it’s not. We’re talking about a prescription used to treat medical issues, other than contraception. If wine/coffee/pork were the most preferred methods to treat a medical condition, then we’d have a different argument.</p>
<p>My kids would probably behead me if they knew I was posting this online, but they, too have used BCP for reasons other than contraception. When one of them was in between medical insurance plans and needed a refill, I suggested she go to her local PP. She said there was no way she was going there; there were too many protesters in front of the building every day, and she would feel unsafe going there. So she went without for a couple of months until her new insurance kicked in. </p>
<p>So yea, even having access to PP in your area does not necessarily make it any easier to access BCP, even if you’re not using it for contraception.</p>
<p>BTW - I know some girls (and middle-aged women now) who are prescribed BCP, but use condoms for their main contraception, since condoms have the added benefit of protecting against STDs; but they still take BCP for medical reasons.</p>
<p>Personally I think this is why it’s a huge mistake for us to be getting health care from the places we work. There’s no reason it has to be this way.</p>
<p>You don’t have to get your insurance through your work place now. Every major carrier offers individual plans…</p>
<p>I’ve read through this thread with interest. One thing that a few have alluded to but bears repeating is that America is a free country and as such, no one MUST work for a Catholic charity, hospital, school, or other organization. Furthermore, there are something like 2,000 colleges in America – no one MUST go to a Catholic one. If access to contraception through a company insurance plan is a priority, then the simple answer to me is don’t work at a Catholic-based company. Am I missing something?</p>
<p>Health insurance is tied to employers due to government intervention and setting of wage maximums after WWII. Since companies (specifically automakers) could not offer $$ incentives in order to hire the best people, they resorted to non-compensation lures to attract the talent they wished to hire. Thus, employers started offering to cover the cost of health insurance for their employees. Now, this many years later it is assumed it is an employers ‘responsibility’ to provide this benefit. And, ironically, the genesis of the current convoluted healthcare system was government mandates controlling wages. Hmmmm…will we ever learn?</p>
<p>jc40…I think what you may be missing is the sense of ‘someone owes me this not only for free but they should also deliver it to my front door since I can’t be bothered to put in the effort myself…it might require public transportation and a whole morning of my time at an offsite facility and…I should not have deal with such insurmountable difficulties’. As a young Georgetown law student so pitifully stated at a press conference …yeah…I pay 50K to come here so I DESERVE free BC!. Heavens forbid how could anyone be so cold hearted as to deny what this woman DESERVES!</p>
<p>i tend to agree with you jc40 and also i have no problem with the catholic CHURCH dictating its rules/philosophies to its members…and that the govt should have NO control over them, HOWEVER as a health insurance company i dont think they have the same discretion…which are they? a church or a health insurance company? if a health insurance company then you have the same rules as all other insurance companies. Maybe they should divest themselves of their insurance business/interests… get a blue cross policy for their employees, and then each individual covered may make their own “moral” decision as to whether they will abide by the church and not purchase birth control.</p>
<p>mncollegemom, have you checked the prices on individual health plans lately? Especially if you have a pre-existing condition?</p>
<p>Even it were the same price as the group plans that carriers offer to employers – which it is NOT – those plans are paid for by the employer, in whole or in part. If you buy an individual policy, you’re on the hook for the whole thing. And it is unbelievably expensive.</p>
<p>lasma… yep try 16K per year for our family plan! self employed no group plan!</p>
<p>Ours is “only” $9K – with a $12,000 deductible and no preventive coverage. What a deal, eh?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not quite. Self-funded plans – not insured – generally have an ERISA exemption to having to follow insurance rules.</p>
<p>you are right bluebayou 
… i should have said… they SHOULD have the same rules… or separate the health insurance company from the church. (and i know there are problems beyond the catholic church issue if they did have the same rules)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><em>Raises hand!</em> And I am far from alone.</p>
<p>LasMa—if you move from a group plan to an individual plan with out a recognized gap in coverage, HIPPA laws, and even more so in 2014 HCR laws prevent insurance companies from denying you coverage for preexisting conditions. In 2014, unless things change with that, it will be illegal to charge extra for pre-existing conditions. In our state, that is already illegal and has been for many years but that is not the case everywhere, yet.</p>
<p>As for price, depends on where you live. Individual plans with similar coverage in our state are less expensive on the whole for the individual vs the total cost for a group plan premium.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court will uphold the Church’s position on this. The free exercise of religion is protected absent some really compelling interest. There is no countervailing ‘right’ to have your employer pay for your BC pills no matter why you need them. There is no ‘right’ to medical insurance at all in the Constitution. </p>
<p>So, yes, if the government can compel the Catholic Church to provide BC, they could require other religions to do and provide things that go against their beliefs.</p>
<p>The Court just decided a case by 9-0 saying that a church could fire a lay teacher despite the employment laws because she was in part teaching religion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ugh!!! </p>
<p>It won’t be the first time, and likely not the last time on CC I’ve corrected CC posters (so I ask for their indulging, as this is one of my biggest pet peeves among people talking about health care), it’s HIPAA!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Link, please?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you’re talking about a prescription drug, that, one of its uses happens to be for contraception/birth control. This prescription drug has other uses, and Catholic institutions are denying medical insurance coverage for it across the board… doesn’t matter what you’re using it for, and it’s not their business to ask its employees what they’re using it for if its prescribed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our small group plan (group = DH and Myself ) has zero, zip zilch coverage for ANY name brand drug. Regardless of the use, regardless of whether or not a generic is available. I am being denied coverage for medication which may be needed. I KNEW when I signed up for this plan that this exclusion existed. Should I now ask the government to mandate something different?</p>
<p>LasMa: the difference in coverage and costs between states is an easily researched issue. Or, pull up the annual Consumer Reports issue on health insurances. The insurance industry and the baseball industry are the ONLY instances where interstate competition is disallowed. When Obamacare passed, this issue was skirted around and ignored. One very simple fix to the cost issue would be to allow Blue Cross of MA for example, offer their policy in California. No can do and our talking heads in DC refused to tread in these waters.</p>