<p>How many insurance plans provide contraceptive coverage with no deductibles or co-pays for patients? If it actually saves money to give away birth control, presumably no mandate would be needed.</p>
<p>Ema- 30 minutes and a world away. Good luck.</p>
<p>“If the most important thing is to prevent abortion, then why not just make sure sexually active women have access to a year’s worth of appropriate BCP’s, at a time.”</p>
<p>You may be surprised to learn that many women choose NOT to take birth control pills, even if they are free or virtually free at family planning clinics. The reasons are diverse – they have no regular sexual partner, they don’t like the real or perceived side effects, their lives are in too much disarray to take birth control pills properly, they aren’t opposed to an “unintended” pregnancy and secretly hope it will help them keep the father around.</p>
<p>“Hunger has a new address in metro Detroit. Studies show 1 in 5 people, 800,000 people, face hunger or a lack of food daily in metro Detroit. Tragically, it is estimated that one in four children face hunger or a lack of food in the tri-county area. 1 in 2 children in the City of Detroit face hunger or a lack of food.”</p>
<p>They may FACE hunger or a lack of food, but they don’t actually suffer from an actual shortage of calories. Even poverty advocates understand this, which is why they came up with the “food insecure” label instead of talking about actual hunger. Or starvation.</p>
<h1>702 - Are these reasons not to support: sexually active women have access to a year’s worth of appropriate BCP’s, at a time.?</h1>
<p>claremarie: Is it possible you support restricting access to BCPs as much as possible? Are there any circumstances where you support access to BCPs?</p>
<p>edit: It was a surprise to me when I recently learned hunger is a growing problem in this country. And that according to everything I read, the trend is that it is an increasing problem. sorry to go off topic but this does speak to poetgrl’s concern with women/children I think.</p>
<p>
This is the kind of thinking that proves my point. There was no reason for the administration to take on the Catholics (who voted for Mr. Obama) when there were other ways of getting to the same result.</p>
<p>I actually think there is no reason why we shouldn’t provide vouchers for BCP for women who want them and cut out the insurance companies and leave the conscience objectors to themselves.</p>
<p>Unless the reason for the mandate was something other than providing contraception.</p>
<p>
I am a conservative republican. Coming from that POV, I can tell you that there is honest to goodness hunger. Actual hunger, not insecurity. Hunger. In this country in 2012. It is also true that in some places access to reasonaly priced fruits and vegetables is not easy. I read an article today about the rising costs of food in my area and I am worried that more people will become hungry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m unclear which “point” you were making that this proved.</p>
<p>But, I’m all for single payor, get the darn employers out of the insurance business, model, personally, anyway.</p>
<p>I’m also in favor of otc bcp, though I see that this might be problematic from a medical perspective and would want to hear a recomendation from OB’s before I would weigh in on whether I think this is feasable.</p>
<p>Personally, I think anyone who can afford the co-pay should pay, but in a means tested way, I completely agree with vouchers for those who have real financial hardship, truly.</p>
<p>ETA: I agree about the hunger issue. We have severe food inflation right now, but since it is not counted in the inflation index, we act as if it does not exist. I’m stunned at the cost of my groceries. Truly stunned. Anectodally, I was at costco today and they are not even carrying produce anymore where we are. There were a few apples…</p>
<p>They used to have everything, but it’s too expensive now. not good.</p>
<p>We can offer bcps over the counter, and include a voucher like food stamps.</p>
<p>zoosermom:
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm[/url]”>http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm</a>
</p>
<p>If a woman can’t afford to feed her children, she probably can’t afford birth control.</p>
<p>How many insurance plans provide contraceptive coverage with no deductibles or co-pays for patients? If it actually saves money to give away birth control, presumably no mandate would be needed. </p>
<p>Every single insurance company operating in 28 states, plus every single insurance company providing insurance to federal government employees, plus most ERISA plans, plus (I think, but I have no count), most Catholic self-insurers (such as Georgetown University Health Plan or Providence Health Systems). Also all those who have Medicaid managed care plans. The mandate is not just for BCPs (actually, BCPs are a very small part of the recommended list of preventive health services.)</p>
<p>I think it might be easier to try to count the insurance companies who don’t provide the preventive health services benefit. Doesn’t mean the all the individual plans of each of these companies offers the benefit. </p>
<p>Companies often do things that in the long run don’t turn out to be in their best interest. But the mandate isn’t about costs.</p>
<p>“This is the kind of thinking that proves my point. There was no reason for the administration to take on the Catholics (who voted for Mr. Obama) when there were other ways of getting to the same result.”</p>
<p>They didn’t. Catholics and Catholic women overwhelmingly support the mandate. I’m certain that it s even more overwhelming for Catholics who supported Obama. Catholic institutions (and many Catholic churches), with priests, nuns, and Catholics on their boards, already voluntarily provide the full package of preventive health services. The Catholic Health Association supports the administration’s position.</p>
<p>
It’s right there in the post. That there was no reason for the administration to take on the Catholics when the result could be achieved in a less contentious way. Is that more clear to you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Brilliant! Perfect.</p>
<p>I 100% could not agree more. Let’s call Sebelius immediately.</p>
<p>From the reactionary pages of the Washington Post:</p>
<p>“But the prevalence of food deserts is almost certainly overstated. Not having a supermarket in your Zip code isnt the last word in access to healthy food. According to the USDA, 93 percent of desert dwellers have access to a car. And farmers markets, often overlooked in surveys of rich and poor neighborhoods alike, have tripled since 1994.
Still, it does seem reasonable that making it easier to buy fresh food would improve what people eat. However, a study published this year in the Archives of Internal Medicine, the first to measure the impact of access to fresh food on diet, followed 5,000 people for over 15 years and found something surprising: Proximity to a grocery store or supermarket doesnt increase consumption of healthy food.” </p>
<p>[Five</a> myths about healthy eating - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-healthy-eating/2011/10/10/gIQAK9uZkL_story.html]Five”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-healthy-eating/2011/10/10/gIQAK9uZkL_story.html)</p>
<p>[Arch</a> Intern Med – Abstract: Fast Food Restaurants and Food Stores: Longitudinal Associations With Diet in Young to Middle-aged Adults: The CARDIA Study, July 11, 2011, Boone-Heinonen et al. 171 (13): 1162](<a href=“http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/171/13/1162]Arch”>http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/171/13/1162)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, actually, thank you.</p>
<p>I happen to agree.</p>
<p>It occurs to me, that you somehow believe that the reason I brought up reduction in abortion is because I think that is someone ELSE’s agenda. I was raised Catholic. Reduction in abortions is a very big issue for ME. Just so we are both clear.</p>
<p>
We have farmers markets that are strategically placed and accept food stamps, but this isn’t the time of year for that here. The organization I work with in teaching English has a food bank (a large one) and other services. Kids get breakfast and lunch in school all year long, but there are truly hungry adults. I don’t understand why real hardship is lost in the shuffle of “slutgate” and all sorts of other nonsense. Maybe it’s just because of the hours I spend at that organization and the real need I see, also my daughter teaches in a school with a demographic as poor as it gets in this country. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for a Georgetown Law student.</p>
<p>alh,</p>
<p>There is plenty of “access” to birth control pills. They are readily available at relatively low cost from a variety of sources, including online. I probably wouldn’t object if they were available over the counter. But it’s a stretch to argue that women don’t have “access” to contraceptive pills unless their employer’s health insurance plan provides them at no cost.</p>
<p>
That’s three of us. I have no opposition to birth control (although I think education about condoms should be front and center) and am fine with it being provided for the needy. I just happen to be too stupid to understand why the administration chose to raise this kerfluffle – unless the intent was to divert attention from other things. And I would dearly love to kick Rush in the tush for playing into that.</p>
<p>How many insurance plans currently, pre-mandate, provide contraceptive coverage with NO deductibles or co-pays for patients? I don’t think that mini answered the question.</p>
<p>Well, I will agree that a georgetown law student was probably NOT the best choice, here, but the ones who really, really need help with this…? They are probably so busy with life and survival that they do need others to speak up. Whether they need a law school student to speak of the vicissitudes of law school students or not is questionable. I’m sure there were many more qualified to speak of the plight of impoverished women in this country. That is true.</p>