<p>
</p>
<p>Do you think that taxpaying U.S. citizens ought to have a say in how those dollars are spent? Anyone taking part in this debate must think so.</p>
<p>They already have. I’m pretty sure that, combined, Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans care, and federal employee programs cover well over 50% of all Americans. Add in virtually all plans issued by United Health Care, all the health care provided in those 28 states, all the ERISA plans - including those provided by Catholic organizations and health systems ranging from Georgetown University to Providence Health, as well as the big employers like Boeing - and I wouldn’t be surprised if upwards of 90% of the insured population has BCP covereage, and has for a very long time. </p>
<p>And, no, I DON’T think U.S. citizens should be deciding what constitutes sound preventive health practices - though in the sense that they elected the Govs and legislators in those 28 states, and the federal government that, under both political parties, has provided BCP under Medicaid, Medicare, veterans services, and federal employees - they already have, and for a very, very long time.</p>
<p>The reality is that this is much ado about very little, except the pronouncements of a very small number of supposedly celibate men.</p>
<p>Taxpaying citizens do get a say in how those dollars are spent through their elected representatives.</p>
<p>“As an aside, PG, if pregnancy is life threatening for you or your acquaintances, is there a reason why you do not undertake a permanent procedure to prevent it, rather than rely on a less than fool-proof method?”</p>
<p>As I said in my post, I did, but that’s neither here nor there. Pregnancy isn’t necessarily life-threatening for me in the sense that OMG-if-I-turn-up-pregnant-I’ll-die – but I have an increased chance of having the same thing happen again and of having premature babies. So it’s unacceptable for me not to have birth control options - and not just sloppy-seconds, but the choice that is most appropriate for <em>me</em> and <em>my</em> medical history. That is an important part of <em>my</em> personal medical care. </p>
<p>Anyway, since when does something have to be “life threatening” for it to be worthy of coverage? I won’t die if I get a UTI and don’t get an antibiotic. I won’t die if I get a migraine and don’t have migraine medication. I won’t die if I have acne and don’t get prescription medication for it. I won’t die if I have allergies and don’t get allergy medication. So what? Medical treatment isn’t only about preventing certain death; it’s about making life better. And that’s acknowledged by the mere fact that people are ok acknowledging that bcps treat non-lethal conditions such as migraines or acne.</p>
<p>I wonder what the reaction would be if the Cath church said they wouldn’t cover epidurals for women giving birth. After all, that’s not medically necessary either. You won’t die if you don’t have an epidural; pay for it your own self if it’s so important, eh?</p>
<p>Grove City was willing to put their belief system in front of their desire for federal funds.</p>
<p>What happened in Grove City, Tom?</p>
<p>ETA: I just looked it up and realized Grove City is a college which stopped accepting federal money in 1977 because of what they considered to be untenable federal demands. </p>
<p>So, there you have it. Grove City. Far cry from Georgetown, but hey, it CAN be done. ;)</p>
<p>If there are legislators don’t like the “mandates”, let 'em try to take away BCP from military veterans and their families.</p>
<p>They were willing to forgo federal finacial aid programs
Here it is from Wiki-
Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that Title IX, which only applies to colleges and universities that receive federal funds, could be applied to a private school that refused direct federal funding, but where a large number of students had received federally funded scholarships. The Court also held that the federal government could require a statutorily mandated “assurance of compliance” with Title IX, even though no evidence had been presented to suggest that Grove City College had discriminated in any way. However, the Court also held that the regulation would only apply to the institution’s financial aid department, not to the school as a whole.</p>
<p>While Hillsdale College was not a party to this case, the result of this case directly influenced that insitituton to decline all federal aid starting with the fall 1984 semester – a practice that continues today. Grove City followed suit in 1988, establishing a loan program with PNC Bank instead.</p>
<p>This could save everyone sometime…</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/1287074-contraception-assistance-catholic-campuses.html?highlight=catholic+birth+control[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/1287074-contraception-assistance-catholic-campuses.html?highlight=catholic+birth+control</a></p>
<p>Read, repeat…read…repeat…nothing new to be found here. Same cast of characters, same opinions, no minds have been changed, no opinions have been modified…but a large number of electrons have been sent through the cloud…no doubt seriously upsetting said electrons…maybe they need a union.</p>
<p>This debate (at least for me) is not about whether bcps should be widely accessible, or covered by insurance; it should be and it already is! The question is whether it is appropriate for the federal government, as opposed to the consumer or the private insurance company or the states, to decide who gets their birth control paid for by others, and how much they do or don’t have to pay.</p>
<p>On one end of the continuum are people who think any and all birth control ought to be made available to everyone for free by law (i.e., at taxpayer expense), and on the other end of the continuum are people who think that those who choose to use birth control ought to pay for it themselves.</p>
<p>I don’t think opinions can be changed much at the two extremes.</p>
<p>The federal mandate falls close to the former side of the continuum. It takes away the rights of private individuals who have insurance to decide whether they will pay for birth control or not; they all must pay, regardless of what state they live in. And it removes all responsibility for paying for it from the person using it; at least to the same extent that everyone else is burdened by it.</p>
<p>Many of you are very supportive of that approach, which is good, because it is probably what you will get. I respect the opinions of those who oppose it (like myself lol, and the Catholic Church even tho I am not Catholic and don’t agree with their view), because every time the federal government mandates something, no matter how small in your minds, we lose a little bit of freedom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bay, do you believe that health care is a something, like education, or clean water, which ought to be available to everyone, or do you believe it is an item, like a car, or a television set? I used to think it was a commodity (sp?), though I’ve changed my mind over the past few years.</p>
<p>“The question is whether it is appropriate for the federal government, as opposed to the consumer or the private insurance company or the states, to decide who gets their birth control paid for by others, and how much they do or don’t have to pay.”</p>
<p>It’s actually much, much narrower than that. As noted, the federal government already mandates (and pays for) birth control for well over 50% of the population, and has done so for a very long time. Medicare, Medicaid, active military, veterans, federal government employees. Consumers don’t have a choice. The dozens of insurance plans under the federal government employee program don’t have a choice. Providers of veterans services don’t have a choice. Your taxes pay for this service, and have for a very long time. I haven’t heard a single legislator, Congressman, priest, or bishop come forward to advocate ending this mandate. So the mandate is okay for the poor, the elderly, the military, and federal employees, or so it would seem. And you pay for it.</p>
<p>Everything else is a small fraction of this. Mandates already exist in 28 states, enacted by legislators of both parties - Democrats and Republicans - and signed into law by governors of both, Democrats and Republicans. So now we are down to the non-covered population in 22 states. Except that in many of those states, preventive services for state and county employees and schoolteachers, provided through private health insurance companies, are determined by the list set forth by the U.S. Public Health Service, usually as part of their contractual obligation in the bidding process. All paid for by ratepayers.</p>
<p>(It should be noted that every time we talk about “paying”, from an insurance perspective, the opposite is the case. It is savings - the cost of providing the service is less than not providing it. So if you oppose the mandate, you should be voluntarily paying HIGHER taxes for not covering the service - including the cost of botched abortions, if you want to not pay for safe ones).</p>
<p>So now figure out who’s left?</p>
<p>To me, my position is that bcpills fall in the category of basic health needs, and shouldn’t be treated any differently from, say, antibiotics or allergy medications. They should be covered by all health plans, but a reasonable co-pay is entirely appropriate. I see no argument that they should be fully free, but neither do I comprehend any argument that makes them any different from antibiotics or other “everyday” (for lack of a better term) medications</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Health care is available to everyone; the difficult question is how much should each person be expected to pay for every available treatment. Opinions will differ widely on this; depending on the condition and the treatment.</p>
<p>I am not opposed to health care providers covering or discounting the bc pill with a co pay. But we need to realize that each plan will differ. Like current medication coverage, some will be at 100%, some 70 and some 30%. I am opposed to the government getting involved and mandating that it be free. </p>
<p>I need help understanding why access to free birth control pills is a “right”</p>
<p>mini,
None of the private insurance plans I have ever subscribed to (which is at least 5, and probably more) have offered bcps with no co-pays. So that is one little bit of freedom that will be taken away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That actually happened to me! My crappy insurance wouldn’t pay for my epidural when I gave birth to my daughter. I got a bill from the hospital and called the insurance company, thinking that there was a mistake. But no, they said that epidurals are not necessary and were not covered. (I had two days of breech labor followed by forceps delivery, BTW.) I had to work out a payment plan with the hospital to pay for my epidural.</p>
<p>“None of the private insurance plans I have ever subscribed to (which is at least 5, and probably more) have offered bcps with no co-pays. So that is one little bit of freedom that will be taken away.”</p>
<p>Well, if you want to pay MORE to have a plan WITH co-pays, be my guest. Having bcps with no co-pays SAVES the plans money. That’s why they do it. It isn’t out of the goodness of their hearts. Same reason why they offer other public health services with no co-pays.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm, I wonder why none of my plans had no co-pays then. I guess they didn’t want to save money (??)</p>
<p>Regardless, I do not think it is the role of the federal government to mandate the amount of co-pay for birth control.</p>