Cost of Contraception

Parent Cafe
181

<p>

</p>

<p>Because you can definitively link the two.</p>

<p>You don’t want to be in a position to prove to your insurance that something is or isn’t necessary. It can take a long time and in the meantime your condition gets worse. My mom had to fight to get her eye surgery covered when it was popping out of her head due to Graves Disease. Insurance called it cosmetic. Doctors called it necessary considering she couldn’t blink right or close her eyes at night when she slept. It was a year+ long battle and resulted in multiple surgeries rather than just the one. </p>

<p>The same with BC. It is far to easy to deny it to someone who actually NEEDS it (PCOS, etc) even if there is a clause that says BC can be prescribed to treat medically necessary illnesses. It’s just too slippery of a slope and can leave many women with potentially very dangerous conditions that are left untreated and could very easy, and cheaply, be treated if they didn’t have to prove what they weren’t using their medication for. </p>

<p>Insurance NEEDS to be separated from employers. It doesn’t work. And I do firmly believe that employers will use this “moral objection” clause to deny coverage and save themselves money. Greed is a VERY powerful motivator.</p>

182

<p>Cute story, Slithy, but no other form of bc came near the effectiveness of the pill. It started the so called sexual revolution. Extra marital sex occurs in couples who are married to other individuals as well. I am not Catholic, but I am solidly behind the Catholic church on this one</p>

183

<p>Single Joe may also be helping to pay the premium of his girlfriend the secretary, who’s earning $35k a year. Joe’s premiums also help pay for Julie’s ob/gyn visits and her flu shots. Meanwhile, Julie’s premiums help pay for getting Joe’s leg set and physical therapy after he wraps his motorcycle around a pole one night. That’s the way insurance works. Everyone pays into the pot, regardless of income. </p>

<p>If you’d like to have the well-off married couple pay proportionately more than the poorly-paid young single guy, then you advocate for single payer. Which I personally think is a great idea.</p>

184

<p>^that’s an awfully big causal leap you make, you are claiming a decline in morality, attributing it to the intro of the pill. wow.</p>

<p>I find Rush Limbaugh’s behavior and the like demonstrative of the decline in morality. Not women who use birth control to plan their families. </p>

<p>Saw Sandra Fluke on the View, she was intelligent, composed, and imho a wonderful role model for young women. She expressed a reasoned position, demonstrated respect to Georgetown, despite the university not changing it’s position, and did not take Rush’s bait, didn’t criticize him or act like a victim. She did however take a position of recognizing his words were meant to silence her, and she refused to be silenced. She encouraged others to speak up and refuse to permit women to be spoken to and about in this manner. Her actual position should be further understood, particularly the fact that she was never asking taxpayers to pay for birth control.</p>

185

<p>In my area there are five hospitals. Four of those hospitals have merged.Two were non catholic but unfortunately now must concede to catholic thinking.Now there is a special new OR where post-partum tubal ligations can be preformed.But,if having other surgery such as a 45 year old had a mass in her tube and needed removal offered by her Dr. if she wanted it ,to have other tube removed, woman said yes but could not be done because can’t use special OR and can’t have it done in main OR because it is a sterilization.Health care for women is certainly not being moved forward here.</p>

186

<p>Let’s be clear: Georgetown University’s Health Plan, with monsignors, priests, nuns, and heavy-hitting Catholics of all types on its board, freely and voluntarily CHOOSES to provide universal contraceptive coverage - including birth control pills - to ALL its faculty and staff employees, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.</p>

<p>Guess they are contributing to the decline in morality in this country.</p>

187

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, but are there other conditions covered that are neither medically-necessary and have no co-pay by government mandate?</p>

<p>That is the issue.</p>

<p>The issue is who should bear the cost of using prescription birth control? Everyone? Those who use it? Half-and-half?</p>

188

<p>KSM–Pregnancy as punishment for perceived immorality? Welcome back to the seventeenth century. Get your scarlet “A”'s ready! Unbelievable.</p>

189

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m sorry, but this sentence is completely impenetrable. Extra marital sex would mean extra sex that married couples are having. But these married couples seem to be married to other people. The spouse and I agree that we need a wife, so perhaps we should look into this. Regardless, your life sounds much more lively than mine. ;)</p>

190

<p>

</p>

<p>I think this is of great concern to most people. Would a single-payor system prevent this from happening? Or would it get worse?</p>

191

<p>I wonder if there are any cost-benefit analyses of providing free pharmaceuticals. That is, if insurance companies must provide some pharmaceuticals free, which medications provide the most benefit. Are there medications which are so expensive even with co-pays that people don’t use them and then develop expensive to treat problems? </p>

<p>It seems to me that if the government is going to mandate free medications some sort of cost-benefit analysis of this sort should be done. It would be a rational way of allocating the ‘free’ stuff. </p>

<p>This mandate, I suspect, is purely political.</p>

192

<p>It’s not a matter of “providing free pharmaceuticals”. Preventive health services are defined by the U.S. Public Health Service, federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, by a committee of public health and medical experts, looking for evidence-based ways to reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality through prevention.</p>

<p>Apparently, that’s good enough for the priests on the board of Georgetown University’s health plan.</p>

193

<p>Mini, is Georgetown required to provide contraceptive coverage or do they, as you say, freely choose to do so? (Post #186)Not clear on the discrepancy among Catholic intstitutions…</p>

194

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sometimes I think I get where you are coming from, but then you confuse me. Are you advocating some kind of sliding scale coverage as implied in the first quote? Joe makes far less than Julie and husband, so by virtue of that fact alone, he should pay less for insurance? Or, are you saying it’s unfair to pay premiums for treatments/medications that one might personally never use? How does that work? Yes, you might take bp meds, and I don’t but I’m somehow upset that I’m paying for you to do so?</p>

<p>As for medically necessary, there are all kinds of treatments which might not be necessary, but enhance health and life. I don’t NEED anesthesia for my colonoscopy, but I sure want it and I expect my insurance to cover it. Are you resentful of this if you personally would never want or ask for anesthesia for your colonoscopy? Who should bear the cost of anesthesia for colonoscopy? Everyone? Those who use it? Half and half? Are you asking these questions of all treatments, or just the ones which involve SEX? Or is it none of the above and simply the fact that it is a “no copay” situation?</p>

195

<p>This is NOT about what individual business owners can do. It is about what religious organizations which employ people can do.</p>

<p>I agree that an individual Catholic who owns a business shouldn’t be able to say I won’t offer medical insurance that doesn’t cover abortions, as long as abortions are legal. I also don’t think that an individual employer should be able to make hiring decisions based on the religious beliefs of the applicants. </p>

<p>But I do think religious organizations should be able to do this. There is a difference. I think that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that you have to be Jewish to teach in a Yeshiva or you have to be a Jehovah’s witness to work at the offices of the Watchtower. Or that you have to be a “Christian” to teach at Wheaton (Ill) College.</p>

<p>I am hopeful that the Supreme Court agrees with me. Are you familiar with this decision? [Supreme</a> Court Decision: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. - Document - NYTimes.com](<a href=“Supreme Court Decision: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. - Document - NYTimes.com”>Supreme Court Decision: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. - Document - NYTimes.com)
It involves a Lutheran School which fired a teacher who had threatened to sue it for an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The teacher was “called,” i.e., got the job in part because she was Lutheran and had fulfilled requirements in Lutheran theology. She was fired after threatening to sue. The Court held that the federal government had no right to interfere in the matter. </p>

<p>This is the right decision, IMO. Note that it was unanimous. </p>

<p>I just don’t think that if you CHOOSE to attend a Catholic college, you have a right to say that the health plan has to cover abortions and contraception, which are contrary to the beliefs of the Catholic Church. And to me it’s ludicrous to suggest that this is the same thing as an individual secular employer refusing to cover type 2 diabetes for obese employees. </p>

<p>If you choose to choose Principia College, a Christian Science college, I don’t think you have a right to demand that it provide health insurance, since medical treatment is contrary to the teachings of Christian Science. </p>

<p>If you choose to attend Earlham College, a Quaker school, I don’t think you have a right to demand that it start a ROTC unit so you can use your ROTC scholarship there. </p>

<p>If you choose to attend BYU, a Mormon school, you have to follow the dress code. So, I don’t think a non-Mormon female student would have any right to complain if she got kicked out for wearing her skirts above the knee or wearing sleeveless dresses. </p>

<p>What is the difference between doing any of these things and demanding that a Catholic college provide medical coverage for abortions and contraception? </p>

<p>The Catholic Church is not “inventing” its religious beliefs so it can pay lower medical insurance premiums. This is NOT about “greed.”</p>

196

<p>[Rush</a> Limbaugh, AOL Part Ways](<a href=“Rush Limbaugh, AOL Part Ways | HuffPost Latest News”>Rush Limbaugh, AOL Part Ways | HuffPost Latest News)</p>

<p>Interesting.</p>

197

<p>

Actually, that’s exactly the same debate. Government - state as well as federal - regulates what has to be covered in insurance plans. Not just health insurance, either - casualty and liability insurance as well. It’s simply been the product of lots of abuse by insurance companies. That horse left the barn years ago.</p>

<p>But I’m ready to jump on the “Joe in the mailroom” bandwagon. Let’s start here: I’m white. Why should I pay for sickle cell anemia treatment? I’m never gonna get it. I’m also not Jewish, so let’s exclude Tay-Sachs. And since I’m not a woman, why stop with BCP? Why should I pay for any kind of OB-GYN treatment?</p>

<p>And for the “aspirin between the knees” crowd, consider this: should flu shots be covered? I mean, all you have to do to avoid getting the flu is avoid all normal human intercourse. Or maybe I mean “interaction” - anyway, you get the idea - just don’t go near any (ugh!) people. That way, you won’t get the flu. And if you do, it’s you’re own fault. All that benefit you get from being able to be in the same room with other folks makes the consequences your own fault. As Rush Limbaugh put it: “I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?” </p>

<p>So pay up, you flu-ridden parasites! ;)</p>

198

<p>Regarding vehicle inspections…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In CA. The only inspection required is smog. Once every 2 years and if you don’t pass you go to a special test station…and then you pass. We have vehicles with duct tape holding doors, windows, hoods in place. In certain areas it’s almost a badge of honor to drive the most beat up, bald tired, cracked wind-shielded gross polluting thing on 4 (mismatched because the ‘temporary’ tire is now used as one of the permanent ones) wheels.</p>

199

<p>'Mini, is Georgetown required to provide contraceptive coverage or do they, as you say, freely choose to do so? (Post #186)Not clear on the discrepancy among Catholic intstitutions… "</p>

<p>They freely CHOOSE to do so, because apparently the priests, nuns, monsignors, and other Catholics on their board think it is good policy. My wife works for the largest Catholic hospital system in my state - a three-state consortium - with hundreds of thousands of covered employees and families, Catholic and non-Catholic. The priests, nuns, monsignors, and Catholic heavy-hitters on their board also provides the coverage.</p>

<p>Nationally, Catholic Charities, Catholic Social Services, and a host of national Catholic organizations have endorsed the HHS policy.</p>

<p>Such policies, and the work of Planned Parenthood, have likely prevented more abortions (among Catholics and others) than all the Popes, Archbishops, Bishops, Monsignors, Priests, Nuns, and official pronouncement combined. It’s no wonder that most Catholics, and most women, support the policy.</p>

200

<p>I’m interested by the idea that organizations should have greater free exercise rights than individuals. That’s not how I see it.</p>

<p>It seems to me that absent any moral objections, any health insurance company would want to pay for contraception–especially if they cover maternity costs. Even delaying paying for a pregnancy for a year or two would be worth a whole bunch of contraceptive costs. Paying for contraceptives will probably save Joe in the mailroom money.</p>