<p>poetgrl,</p>
<p>If you are trying to make a point that the organization I cited supports the federal mandate, I already knew that. But if bcps become otc, the offensive issues involved in the mandate become moot, unless the mandate requires insurance companies to cover otc medications at no co-pay, but I don’t think it does that. I’m sure mini knows. ;)</p>
<p>Bay, </p>
<p>While I understand, and have understood, what you are saying the entire time, you are, in fact, avoidng an important reality.</p>
<p>Many impoverished women cannot afford even bread. This population is the one I am most concerned with, in general, and in terms of preventing pregnancy, in particular. In many states laws are being enacted to get rid of planned parenthood, the only provider of inexpensive, or free, as the need may arise, forms of birth control. </p>
<p>Do you just not care what happens in this case? It’s fine if you do not. But, you must realize most of us on this thread are not really concerned with our own ability to pay for BCPs, if we needed them. Or sterilization, as the case may be.</p>
<p>poetgrl,
This thread is not about those women. Its about women who have employer-based medical insurance plan coverage.</p>
<p>Of course I care about poor women, but lets not muddy the issue.</p>
<p>And anyway, making bcps available otc will make them more affordable for all women, because competition will drive the price down.</p>
<p>I actually think that IS the issue.</p>
<p>The affordability and accesibility of birth control for all women. If the issue is women who have health insurance and the employer not covering it, then why would you ‘assume’ someone who works at McDonald’s, who recieved an exemption from full health insurance coverage, can afford BCP’s? I really don’t understand who it is you think we want this coverage for, honestly. 75% of single mothers who live at or below the poverty level in this country HAVE A JOB. </p>
<p>You really need to get out more and look around you.</p>
<p>Bay, birth control pills being over the counter is a red herring in this discussion. In the fantasy world in which birth control pills were OTC in the US, or could become available over the counter any time soon, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. </p>
<p>In the real world we live in, where there is no chance, none whatsoever, that birth control pills could become available over the counter, where this is politically impossible, we are discussing preventative medicine that is prescribed and dispensed by medical professionals.</p>
<p>What is your opinion about this mandate in the context that your preferred solution, birth control pills OTC, is impossible?</p>
<p>“The intended effect of the mandate is to save costs, through better health.”</p>
<p>Presumably, insurance companies are keenly aware of costs. If it were actually cheaper for insurance companies to provide “free” contraceptives than either not to cover them at all, or to require co-pays, then wouldn’t insurance companies, acting in their own financial interest, already be doing so? And if the real intent is to save costs through better health, then why aren’t other drugs, such as insulin or inhalers, covered by this mandate as well?</p>
<p>“Someone else DOESN’T pay for them. They pay for them through their premiums, as they do for all other preventive health services. I don’t require childhood immunizations (anymore); I pay for them through my premiums.”</p>
<p>Well, that doesn’t make sense. We’ve been told that women (all women, not just low-income women) NEED to have “free” contraceptives because otherwise they will not have “access” to them. “Access” in this case means “at no cost to the patient.” The contraceptives will be “free” to them because others – either their employer, or the insurance company (not), or their fellow policyholders – will be picking up the tab. That’s the whole point of the mandate.</p>
<p>poetgrl,
Taking <em>your</em> argument to its logical conclusion, I assume you must support no co-pay coverage of every medical treatment, regardless of its impact on the cost of the premium, for the benefit of the women who have jobs with employer coverage but cannot afford a loaf of bread. Is that what you are saying?</p>
<p>“75% of single mothers who live at or below the poverty level in this country HAVE A JOB.”</p>
<p>Even if that is true, how many of these women work full-time with the option to purchase employer-provided health insurance? And how many of those women actually purchase that health insurance? And of that group, how many are declining to use birth control pills SOLELY because their insurance policy either does not cover contraceptives, or requires a copay? These are the only poor women who will get any benefit at all from the contraceptive mandate. The situation of the vast majority of low-income actual or potential single mothers will be unchanged. </p>
<p>The primary beneficiaries of this mandate are women who can afford and are already taking birth control pills. They also tend to vote.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? I have to go through this again? My opinion is that the vast majority of employer plans already cover birth control; there are many options for preventing pregnancy, some of which cost money and some of which don’t; if a woman must use bcps and she is one of the very few women with employee coverage that does not cover it, then she can purchase it for about $9 per month.</p>
<p>
So if a person is also outraged by those things, do they have your permission to be against abortion too?</p>
<p>My problem, I guess, is that I can’t help looking at arguments to see if they might be persuasive to somebody who really is undecided about the issue in question. I don’t find very many such arguments in the abortion debate (kluge, I salute you for at least trying to make one–I’m not sure I buy it, though).</p>
<p>“Well, that doesn’t make sense. We’ve been told that women (all women, not just low-income women) NEED to have “free” contraceptives because otherwise they will not have “access” to them.”</p>
<p>I have no idea who is telling you this. The U.S. Preventive Health Taskforce said no such thing. The BCPs under the mandate are NOT FREE. They are paid for with premiums. In theory of course, middle-class folks could pay (extra) for all childhood immunizations. </p>
<p>The whole point of the mandate is to have a list of preventive health services recommended by the best public health and medical minds in the country available to everyone, and PAID FOR with premiums. (They are already mandated to everyone on Medicaid, Medicare, veterans, military people, federal government employees, everyone in 28 states, and by contract to state government employees and schoolteachers and their families in 22 states, and provided voluntarily by virtually all ERISA plans, including Catholic organizations, and even some Catholic churches.) NONE of them are free. No one forces anyone to use any of them. There are plenty of people who don’t immunize their kids either.</p>
<p>“Seriously, drive through Detroit sometime. Grocery stores are a rarity. I know many, many children in inner cities who have very little access to good food and therefore will be plagued with health problems throughout their lives. Where is the outrage over QUALITY of life issues?”</p>
<p>Poor children in inner-city Detroit are not suffering because there is no full-service grocery store nearby selling apples, carrots, and arugula. They are suffering because their parents put their own sexual needs ahead of the needs of the children they created, and because their fathers essentially abandon them before or shortly after birth. That is the truth, and there is plenty of outrage about it, although society seems increasingly unable to express it because of the concerns about seeming judgmental about “family differences.” </p>
<p>And many people who oppose abortion also support crisis pregnancy centers where young women with unintended pregnancies can find medical, financial, and emotional assistance.</p>
<p>claremarie
</p>
<p>I hope you are wearing a tarp…cause you are going to get it…the poo poo will hit the fan for that statement. Very Very un PC.</p>
<p>“I have no idea who is telling you this. The U.S. Preventive Health Taskforce said no such thing. The BCPs under the mandate are NOT FREE.”</p>
<p>Indeed, I stand corrected. They are provided “without cost-sharing.” Which is, of course, different from “free.” “Free” means that the patient doesn’t have to incur any costs. “Without cost-sharing” means that the patient doesn’t have to incur any costs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, where is the federal mandate for felony charges against men who abandon their children? I have never heard one politician discuss the need for stricter legislations and stricter penalties for non-payment of child support. And don’t tell me we can’t find the offenders. ever heard of anyone escaping the IRS? No. We can find them.</p>
<p>It’s because this cause is not about starving children or every child being sacred, but about other people wanting to decide what women can and cannot do with their bodies.</p>
<p>As for your argument about why people are starving in Detroit, I’d look first at the loss of manufacturing jobs and the offshoring of manufacturing jobs before I looked at the moral fiber of those who got trapped in the structural unemployment scenario which has made Detroit a ghost town.</p>
<p>And, yes, Bay, I am for a single payor health care system so that everyone can get the health care they need, just as I am for a public education system so that everyone can get an education.</p>
<p>
but the absolute truth</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re kidding, right? You are incredibly naive and just plain wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LIKE!</p>
<p>Can we get a show of hands in support of felony charges for abandonment of children by fathers?</p>
<p>I am raising mine!</p>