<p>I just tried, and failed, to find a health insurance trade association that had made a statement on the issue of covering birth control without copay. The main such association says nothing about it on it website. If anybody else can find one, I’d sure be interested.</p>
<p>Don’t know anyone who won’t take Tylenol.
I agree that if you don’t need contraception 24/7 there are healthier options- if less effective than birth control pills. Although there can be health * benefits* for some women with the pills as well.</p>
<p>“Regarding the current US fertility rate, it has decreased over the years (with some dips and bumps), to the point where it is lower than the replacement rate. This would indicate that US women are not having trouble controlling their fertility under status quo conditions.”</p>
<p>That is a good point. All of those “unintended” pregnancies (at least, those that are not ended by abortion) don’t seem to be resulting in larger families.</p>
<p>
But aren’t they, in fact, ending in abortion a lot of the time? And aren’t health insurers paying for those abortions, or at least for the complications from abortion?</p>
<p>I don’t envy the rhetorical moves a person has to make who opposes both abortion and contraception. They are quite convoluted, and I don’t think they’re ever going to convince anybody who doesn’t agree with them on religious grounds–and most religious people in the US don’t oppose contraception.</p>
<p>I think the fertility rate is lower than the replacement rate for whites. I don’t know about blacks, and I read that is not true for Hispanics. I don’t have the cite right now, but I do recall reading that. My guess is that population is among those most likely to be uninsured. They are also likely to be Catholic, and more “conservatively” Catholic than the US population at large. Could be interesting how all those factors affect our topic of discussion.</p>
<p>“There are plenty of poorly educated low, income women who have group health care plans. A large institution employs people of all education and income levels. Many of these women have little disposable income and, if insurance doesn’t cover something, they are not going to get it - even if it is what most of us would call cheap.”</p>
<p>Well, let’s talk about these statements. To begin with, low-income women are far less likely to be enrolled in employer-provided health insurance than are wealthier women, for the obvious reasons – not working, employer doesn’t offer health insurance, or can’t afford the insurance. That’s why we have such a large uninsured population, remember. </p>
<p>And consider that low-income women are also far more likely than their wealthier sisters to be smokers. Some 25% of women living BELOW the poverty level are smokers. Somehow, even with their limited disposable income, they find ways to purchase cigarettes, which, on a monthly basis, actually cost them more than birth control pills. These women have revealed their preferences, and birth control pills don’t seem to be high on the priority list.</p>
<p>
Unless you oppose contraception on moral grounds, what you’ve just stated is a reason to give birth control to these women for free, not the opposite.</p>
<h1>799 My point was that I don’t want to tell other women how to live. I want them to have a variety of options and choose what is best, in their minds, for their own circumstances. If they want the pill, I want them to have it.</h1>
<p>Educating women as to the variety of birth control methods available and possible, including checking cervical mucus, seems desirable. Educating them about potential health risks of various methods also seems desirable. However, it would be presumptuous of me to advocate certain birth control choices for any other woman, include daughters.</p>
<p>And there isn’t a one size fits all solution. </p>
<p>Ultrasounds have been discussed on this thread. I refused ultrasounds when I was pregnant. That was a personal choice, I would never try to persuade another woman to make.</p>
<p>I support midwives, home birth, etc. It would be rather ridiculous for me to persuade others that my beliefs should be the norm and try to impose them on society.</p>
<p>If you want to start a thread about how sexism impacts women’s health care in this country, I would be delighted to participate.</p>
<p>Somehow, even with their limited disposable income, they find ways to purchase cigarettes, which, on a monthly basis, actually cost them more than birth control pills.</p>
<p>I agree addiction is a terrible thing.
When I would go for my ob/gyn care at the local hospital, I commented to my Dr about the obviously pregnant patients smoking cigarettes just outside the doors. She replied that it was preferable to what they were using before they were admitted.
sad to be in that place where you need drugs to get through your life.</p>
<p>Hunt, it seems to me that she’s saying that cigarettes are more important to those people than making sure they’re protected with BCP for when they do it. That almost seems like a reason to not give it for free.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When pharma makes BCPs as addictive as cigarettes, then that argument might make just a little bit of sense. Maybe that’s the ticket.</p>
<p>I understand what she’s saying, but I happen to think that those poor women should be encouraged to use safe and effective birth control.</p>
<p>Right. Condoms.</p>
<p>“All of my private plans have charged a co-pay for bcps. Why did they do this if not charging saves money? I’d like to know if anyone knows the answer to that.”</p>
<p>I don’t know the answer in the case of your plans, but here are some possible answers:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Customer politics. Some preventive medicines save more money than others, but people get angry if a med they need carries a co-pay when one they don’t need goes to a co-worker for free. It may save the insurer headaches to treat all generic scripts the same rather than deal with angry customers complaining about why one med is treated differently from another.</p></li>
<li><p>Long-term vs. short-term savings. Charging a co-pay adds to the bottom line right now. Public companies have to answer to shareholders for profit this quarter, not profit in FY 2019. When we’re discussing policy, we rightly take the long view, but a CEO who says “Don’t worry, this is going to pay off down the road” may lose his job before the company has a chance to benefit from the strategy. There’s a lot of pressure on executives to out-perform competitors THIS year. Mandating that all insurers eliminate the co-pay removes the current perverse incentive to sacrifice profits in 2019 for better profits right now.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>They would be a better choice because of HIV, but too many women don’t stand up to men on this issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t take Tylenol because I read that it is the number one cause of liver damage.</p>
<p>@ Zooser But what if the man doesn’t/won’t use one, gets the woman pregnant, and then he leaves. That’s an issue all by itself. If condoms could eliminate this issue, it’d be done already, I’d think. BCP gives the women the power, which is what we want, right?</p>
<p>Hanna,
Your arguments are cogent, but I’m hard pressed to believe that insurance companies intentionally make decisions that negatively affect the bottom line. I’d like to see some official explanation for it.</p>
<p>BCP and condoms, especially for people who aren’t in a long-term relationship.</p>
<p>
This is what I was looking for from their trade associations, but didn’t find. It makes me wonder whether they’d really prefer for the government to tell them to do it, so they don’t have to field complaints from anybody else about it.</p>
<p>“cigarettes are more important to those people than making sure they’re protected”</p>
<p>The more foolish and short-sighted someone’s decisions are, the easier I want it to be for her to choose highly effective birth control (i.e., not condoms alone, especially if the man holds disproportionate power in her relationship, which is especially likely with poor/addicted women). Heaven knows the folks opposing the co-pay rule don’t want to pay for her low-birth-weight baby’s ICU stay, subsidized school lunch, special ed, etc. If she didn’t want the baby in the first place, then I hate that I will have to pay for those things, too.</p>