The median retirement savings of US families between 32-37 years old is $480.
$10/month at the local CVS would represent 25% of the amount that median family is saving for retirement annually. Let’s not think $10/month is trivial for everyone, as it’s clearly not for half of the young families in the US.
That said, I agree that ND is free to decide what it wants to do on this issue.
And the cost of a root canal with required crown is $2500. I know which I would rather cover myself.
[quote]
It is just one more benefit to compare when considering employment offers or whether you wish to be covered by the employer’s insurance or seek insurance on your own or through a parent/domestic partner, etc. Not really groundbreaking.[/quot]
It’s a politically and socially loaded benefit that says a lot about the values of the company, so no, not like getting help paying for my eye exam.
Deliberately making it more expensive to access BC is a political and social statement. The default would be to include it along with all the other ACA zero copay mandates - cancer screenings, annual checkups, etc. All are designed to improve health and save money down the line. In the case of BC it’s that and also to lessen the likelihood of unintended pregnancy and all the tough choices that come with that.
And we can stop throwing around $10/month like that’s the solution (or even accurate. $50/mo is not uncommon). I never took BC pills, side effects put me off. Lots of people can’t for various health reasons. And you have to see a doctor to get a prescription ($50-250), because some people need to know that they can’t take the pill and should do something else. Somewhere in some state a pharmacist can prescribe it? Oh joy. A pharmacist is not a doctor.
ND isn’t putting out free condoms either, I assume.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Please focus on the decision by Notre Dame and refrain from going off-topic and commenting on the Catholic Church’s teachings.
Talk about a misuse of statistics. (Lies, Damn Lies…)
The real analysis, should you really want to do one, is the disposable income of those impacted: grad students (generally poor), faculty (much higher than median) and other staff/employees (mixed, from much higher to not much more than minimum wage). And of course, South Bend has an extremely low cost of living. And, as noted upthread, Planned Parenthood is in the ‘hood, for those grad students and undergrads not still on their parents’ plans.
…despite the best efforts of the same folks who allowed ND to block BC coverage in the first place.
<<<So tell them to stop paying for viagra for whoever might use/need it in their support staff. Fair is fair.<<<
Viagara is prescribed to correct and treat a problem. When BC is prescribed to correct/treat a problem, it’s covered. Fair is fair.
"Good to know that at least one Jesuit school does it right:
Go Redhawks."
Don’t think so. Seems like they, like just about every Catholic college, do not provide contraceptives.
Like most, they presumably opt out and allow the Feds to provide third party insurance at the Fed’s cost. Or it may be the case that Washington State regulationsrequire something different on contraception as compared to other states.
Here’s what SU’s student manual says:
“Section 4.18:
Distribution of Contraceptives/Contraceptive Devices Policy
As a Jesuit Catholic institution, Seattle University prohibits the distribution of contraceptives/contraceptive devices in any form on Seattle University owned, leased, and/or managed property and at University -sponsored events. Seattle University respects the personal decisions individuals and their healthcare providers may make regarding contraceptives/contraceptive devices and in no way prohibits their possession or use.”
What ND did was to object to filing the opt out paperwork, which they believed made them complicit in providing the birth control.
I think that position was a bit of a stretch under the Obama Administration rules (and the Federal courts so far had not been very supportive on ND’s position). But ND’s position has now been supported by new Trump administration rulemaking (which has now mooted the ND lawsuit).
ND really isn’t trying to stamp out the use of birth control in their community. Heck they know that 85+% of U.S. Catholics don’t follow that rule. For ND, I believe the lawsuit is about separation of church/state and religious freedom (not so much about contraception). Which is exactly the kind of thing that you’d expect ND to care about. The free exercise clause would be an important topic at ND – home to the oldest Catholic law school in the U.S.
The effect of viagra is undoubtedly to increase the overall number of births, so it is nothing like BC. I assume that treatments that enhance female libido would be acceptable, and paid for.
Viagra is essentially an aid to performance, by improving vascular engorgement, not to improve libido. It is a treatment for erectile dysfunction, not “libido”. That is its purpose. The effect on number of births is likely a secondary issue, and if a person has a low sperm count viagra isn’t going to help. And why should it be prescribed for non-procreative sex? If it is prescribed for non-procreative sex, so should birth control.
^I didn’t say it improves libido, although indirectly it may. I used the most comparable female sexual health but non-BC treatment I could think of…
I read that your analogy to believing that something to enhance libido was comparable makes the inference that viagra is for libido, which is incorrect. There is a medicine for “female libido” Addyi, which reportedly works on neurotransmitters in the brain, not on vasculature. Is it covered by ND’s insurance?
To my knowledge, there’s no Catholic teaching against treating ED or enhancing libido.
And I don’t think Obamacare requires coverage for ED and libido issues. Some plans cover it, some don’t.
So the discussion of viagara is completely irrelevant. Because the issue is (i) government mandate (ii) conflicting with religious teaching.
Better analogy would be if FDA regulations required ND to serve steak in the cafeteria on Fridays. ND presumably would sue over that as well.
You know what’s a good analogy?
A business/university is run by Jehovah’s Witnesses and their employee insurance won’t pay for blood transfusions.
That’s what’s going on here, this employer’s medical insurance covers only what the business thinks is moral.
^And that analogy shows why it’s such a dumb idea to tie health care to employment.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Not surprisingly, I deleted this comment and the responses to it. Again, keep to topic.
Agree, but I think we’re kinda stuck with that (until single payor kicks in some day).
Notre Dame will retain birth control for employees after all:
https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/notre-dame-employees-will-retain-access-to-free-birth-control/article_06e6a5b4-95dd-528c-a138-0004cae62c5b.html
Interesting. I’m glad, but I wonder why ND changed course?
Important note:
Wonder why they so quickly backtracked on their “sincerely held religious beliefs” :-?