<p>Yes, it does. Some women cannot become pregnant without risking their lives. Good lord. When I became pregnant (=married, desired/planned for pregnancy), I was 27, 5’4" and 121 pounds pre-conception, healthy as a horse. I developed preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome and went into liver and kidney failure which was only ameliorated by delivery of my twins two and a half months early - together, they weighed 5 pounds and spent 2 months in an NICU. I absolutely could not become pregnant again. Now, it so happened I turned to permanent birth control, but that’s neither here nor there. I’m more than a little appalled that you - as a woman, right, I think you are, Bay? - aren’t aware of women for whom avoiding pregnancy is, indeed, a serious health issue. I have a coworker who suffered cardiomyopathy after the uneventful birth of her second child. She cannot become pregnant again. Could we please stop talking about contraception as though it’s a “lucky strike extra” medication and just treat it as what it is - a medication that is essential for people to have access to, just like antibiotics, blood pressure medication, allergy medication, insulin, etc.?</p>
<p>To make myself clear, (feeling like a broken record), if the birth control pills treat a medical condition, then they are not just contraception, they are part of a treatment protocol, which should be removed from this debate.</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>but, they can’t be removed from the debate if the organizations involved will not remove them from the debate under those circumstance. Those medical conditions ARE a part of the debate, whether you like it or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But, these same organizations object to sterilization like tubal ligation. Should tubal ligation and vasectomy be covered?</p>
<p>Should abortion to save the life of the mother be covered?</p>
<p>But let’s be fair. Contraception used only for birth control is different from other medical treatments. One can make a sensible distinction between that and other reasons, just as you can make a distinction between plastic surgery for purely cosmetic purposes vs. reconstructive surgery.
I’m persuaded by the argument that insurers should pay for contraception in general because it reduces overall medical costs. It probably also significantly reduces the number of abortions, which is part of what makes this issue seem so weird to non-Catholics.</p>
<p>
That was their position in the Plan B dispute. I don’t know about other forms of BC.</p>
<p>They are not part of my debate, and I don’t know why they are part of this debate because Georgetown already covers bcp for PCOS sufferers, according to Ms. Fluke.</p>
<p>Here’s the part I could never wrap my head around in this debate:</p>
<p>I think bringing a child into this world is the most profound, solemn, joyful, momentous, important decision a couple will ever make. Or it should be. </p>
<p>So, WHY would we not want to support people to delay pregnancy until they are completely ready? WHY would we want to force people who are admittedly too young, too poor, too irresponsible, too drug-addled, too uncaring or too unprepared, to have babies they don’t want? Simply to punish the woman for having sex? (She should have kept her knees together, let her pay for her fun, etc., etc.)</p>
<p>Guess who usually gets punished the most in this scenario? Walk into America’s classrooms and you can pick them out.</p>
<p>Even if one prognancy is not life threatening, having repeated pregnancies does put health at risk. Look at the life expectancies of women in countires where family planning is not supported. I may be fine carrying one or two kids, but not 10. My own grandmother had numerous health problems as a result of birthing 9 children, so it is medically relevant. Birth and pregnancy affect the body.</p>
<p>Asking about which procedures insurance companies <em>should</em> cover is a different debate than which coverages the government ought to be able to mandate.</p>
<p>Personally, I think my insurance company <em>should</em> cover every possible procedure my doctor and I decide I need. But I know this is not how insurance works. Often, insurance will cover only the cheapest of a number of alternative procedures. I don’t get to choose to take $50K worth of apricot kernel therapy rather than have the tumor removed, if that is what my insurance company will cover, unless I pay for it myself. That is pretty common knowledge.</p>
<p>This is one side going off the deep end. All we are talking about is whether the government should be able to mandate that all insurance companies provide birth control with no co-pay.</p>
<p>I suspect if we dug down deeper we would find out this is not about religious rights or the morality of birth control at all.</p>
<p>I suspect the insurance industry is feeding this fight because they want to fend off federal regulation of benefits in general. If they can win this one, by using religion as a wedge, then they can try to delay the day their policies have to be in compliance with any other federal requirement.</p>
<p>Insurance companies like to keep insurance regulated on the state level, because some states are much more lax in their oversight, and allow companies to sell junk policies.</p>
<p>I think the issues get confused because of the religious angle to contraception. It is my understanding the most insurance companies cover bcps already, but with a co-pay, and that the insurance companies are not opposing the mandate because their costs are not impacted very much and because they can pass on the costs in the form of increased premiums, which we will all have to pay.</p>
<p>It seems to me that what we are seeing here is simply one of the main problems with insurance coverage being linked to employment options, really.</p>
<p>It would be better for us all if this were not the case and we could, then, choose the insurance which best suited our needs. I’m sure that would be different for everyone, really, but with the cost of individual insurance being so much higher than the cost of employer provided health insurance, people are stuck with what the company wants to offer.</p>
<p>While I may want to work in a particular field, it does not necessarily mean that I want my employer to decide what I should and should not have covered by health insurance. So, there is the question of the government telling employers what they can do and the question of employers telling individuals what they can do, and somebody is going to be annoyed, or like most compromises, everyone is going to get a lousy version of what everybody else wants.</p>
<p>I, too, wish insurance was not linked with employment. </p>
<p>I keep seeing statements like "If you don’t like your employer’s insurance, don’t work for them! Or “get your own insurance!” Many people don’t have the ability to job hop every time their insurance gets changed at work; employment rates being what they are, many people are lucky to have any job, much less are they able to pick and choose jobs with insurance coverage in mind.</p>
<p>As for getting an individual plan-please. DH is self employed, so we have private insurance. Four years ago, he was diagnosed with cancer. Last year I had surgery and many procedures related to my neck problems. D2 had knee surgery. Our premiums just went up to 20K per year, even with a high deductible. I would wager that most people who are unhappy with their employment provided group plans would not be able to switch to private insurance and improve their situation.</p>
<p>I, personally would have no problem with government mandated coverage of bcp with copay rather than free. But I, like others, am very uncomfortable with the whole notion of employers being able to opt out of certain coverage due to “moral objections.” I’m concerned about where that would lead.</p>
<p>Actions have consequences. The development of the birth control pill eliminated some, but not all, of the consequences of sex without marriage. Fifty years (?) after the intro of the pill, we live with the consequence of the decline in morality in our society. Some religious organizations choose not to support these actions.</p>
<p>ksm, surely you’re aware that many married couples use BCPs, and that there are many other older forms of BC? One older relative, no longer with us, use to chuckle over playing with a “tugboat” he found in the bathroom while taking a bath. It was his mother’s diaphragm. That was long, long before the advent of the BCP.</p>
<p>With the government no-copay mandate, single Joe in the mailroom who makes $24K now has to help pay, via premiums, for 100% of the prescription birth control used by married Julie, (whose husband works and also has coverage), who makes $175K as in-house counsel in the legal dept. Isn’t that how it would work?</p>
That was long, long before the advent of the BCP.</p>