<p>Do folks such as Limbaugh, or even geeps20 on here. not understand that even if an oral contraceptive is taken just for birth control, a pill must be taken EACH day of EACH month of EVERY year? “…pay for her active sex life”?? Seriously? These things can’t be taken “as needed”, or just during a month when one is on vacation. And for the many young women with PMS, or the more serious form, PMDD, or even for regulation of one’s cycle, these meds are a necessity. The co-pay for the most common one is now $70/month, and the generic brand is NOT the same formulation and does not work for every one.
I haven’t heard definitively, are the companies which are complaining about having to pay for contraception or medically indicated contraceptive medications also going to refuse to pay for Cialis and Viagra? Anyone have any links with that information?</p>
<p>As for Limbaugh, he left college after 2 semesters, where even according to his own mother, he “failed everything”, so it’s no wonder he’s still using terms like “co-ed” (wonder if he went to the “sock hops”?!). He was lucky to have a draft number that was unlikely to have come up, but made sure to get himself classified 4F (from the previous 1Y, same thing), due to a cyst on his rear. THAT should explain it all!</p>
<p>Liar. Limbaugh is a master of words. He knows exactly what will whip up his acolytes; he’s been doing it for 20 years. The only problem here is that, for the first time, he didn’t get away with it. For 3 days running, he clearly used the “right” words for his purpose, and his point was crystal clear: Woman who use contraception, women who stand up for their rights, women who dare to step out of line – are sluts. Slut Shaming is a time-honored way of dealing with uppity women. Good for you, Ms. Fluke, for refusing to be shamed into silence!</p>
<p>The rest of us have learned something very valuable. The way to shut up this loathesome creature is to hit him where it hurts: his bloated pocketbook.</p>
<p>college age women need birth control, and this is about a college refusing to provide access to healthcare.</p>
<p>It’s good information for anyone to know when it comes to college selection. Catholic Universities do not provide birth control for women, or men, for that matter, and anyone concerned their son or daughter might be lazy in this area ought to think about that. Just sayin’</p>
<p>How much does it cost to raise a child these days?</p>
<p>Just curious–how many of you were given detailed coverage information and a formulary list for the health plan before you accepted an employment offer? Never happened to me…</p>
<p>Heck when it is time to update coverage through the employer, you can’t find out exactly what providers & clinics are covered until you actually accept it.</p>
<p>I’ve been reading coverage of this around the net, and as far as I can tell a lot of men believe that if a woman has frequent sex she needs to take more birth control pills, or if she has more than one partner she has to take more pills, or something like that, hhnnh hhnnh hhnnh.</p>
<p>At least, that’s what I conclude from their ■■■■■■■■■■ remarks about Ms. Fluke. Apparently a lot of men don’t know how birth control works. Women who disagree with the birth control mandate don’t seem to adopt the same loathesome tone.</p>
<p>Note the critical word here–it’s the woman who has “plenty of choices”. Not the man. Which ties in with Fang’s comment about how it’s overwhelmingly men who make the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ comments about how women need more birth control to have more sex. </p>
<p>Women’s sexual health, be they sexually active or not, is far more medically involved than is men’s. Generally healthy men don’t go to a urologist on a regular basis starting in their late teens for routine screenings and examinations. They don’t need to consider from the onset of becoming sexually active how different forms of birth control will affect their overall health, or how they will fit into their lifestyles. If/when there’s some form of birth control for men that requires a prescription, the terms of the discussion might change a bit, dontcha think?</p>
<p>I think the availability of effective birth control is <em>more</em> important for men than women in one significant way: in the event of an unexpected pregnancy, only the man has no choice about whether he will become a parent or not. While men may be more likely to make inappropriate comments about a single woman’s public plea for contraception, in real life they have no greater reason to oppose the availability of it.</p>
<p>I think SOMEBODY, whether state, local or federal government, needs to insist that certain things–important, often life-saving procedures–be covered. It’s nice to say that you can go elsewhere if you don’t like the coverage offered. Employers have budget constraints and most of the time that dictates such expenses. Employers don’t always do the ‘right thing’; for most people, it’s simply not an option to change employers and get better coverage.</p>
<p>For years my sister’s (btw, she’s a public school teacher) annual OB/GYN checkup wasn’t covered by her insurance. Her employer believed all teachers could afford to pay for on their own check-ups. It was a self-funded plan and the employees were obviously predominately women. (Employer was trying to keep costs down, perhaps to their credit.) Just made no sense that they’d pay out the wazoo to cover a gyn cancer, but wouldn’t pay for screenings to catch cancer in it’s early (read: cheap) stage. </p>
<p>It’s difficult for employers to always take the high road, to do the right thing. It’s somehow easier ( and far better for the employee) to ‘blame’ it on the Man.</p>
<p>Quote: made no sense that they’d pay out the wazoo to cover a gyn cancer, but wouldn’t pay for screenings to catch cancer in it’s early (read: cheap) stage. </p>
<p>Exactly. This is the whole point of covering preventive care, including bcp, mandated in the affordable care act. It’s about saving $. Period. It’s really not more complicated than that. Since health care is largely for profit in the US, saving $ reduces profits, ie, many people make more $ if you get that cancer operation and multiple treatments, rather than if a simple removing of a few cancerous cells early on does the trick. So, it’s really not in the best interest of the shareholders to cure you at an early stage. Hence the needed mandates. </p>
<p>In order to really save $ on health care, we would need a fundamental dismantling of our current system of for-profit insurance, pharmaceutical and medical equipment industries, and MD specialist’s expectation of making $400k plus per year. The mandates in the ACA are attempting to cut costs while working within our current system. The hope is that we can save $ yet keep our current systems in place–and deliver quality medical care.</p>