Should birth control be covered by universal health care?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/49c4a8a83ea0.jpg[/atsimg]
And I'm not just talking about the pill but other more modern types as well.
Anything that directly impacts the health and well-being of the person covered should be covered by health care. Few things impact a woman's health more directly and forcefully then becoming pregnant. If this obvious fact is not sufficiently convincing, there are also economic factors that should be considered. If a woman brings an unwanted pregnancy to term and delivers a child, it is likely to end up in our overburdened child welfare system. This places a financial burden on the child welfare system in addition to the expenses involved with the delivery. If the woman decides not to carry the child, there are expenses attendant on having an abortion. The only reasons put forth for not including birth control in universal health care are those based on religion, and religion should not dictate our public policy. Certain cosmetic surgeries, dental implants, nutritional and dietary assistance, and in some cases even Viagra prescriptions are some of the things that ARE covered by universal health care...but NOT birth control?
A question, "If birth control were to be left out of universal health control, would women have the basis for a class action suit against the government for discrimination based on sex?"

reply to post by AnteBellum


Two things:

First off, isn't it already free at county health departments? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe my girlfriend said as much the other week - FYI, we do not use due to associated pulmonary issues and the like.

And secondly, I really wish people would stop using it anyway. There are other prophylactic methods/devices, and there's already WELL more than enough hormones floating around in our drinking water decreasing sperm counts, increasing sexual malformities in children and aquatic animals, etc., from this and other related hormone therapies.

First, there should be no taxpayer subsidized health care of any sort. Thus your question is a moot point.

Second, I would still say no. Women can very easily avoid pregnancy by keeping their legs closed. Much cheaper in the short, mid and long terms. As a practical matter, there other ways to "have sex" where pregnancy is impossible; oral sex for example. Additionally, some religions are anti-birth control. Should their taxes be used to subsidize a practice they oppose?

reply to post by Praetorius


There are many other forms of birth control other then the pill. I just put the picture there for glamour.

There are IUD's, implants, the 'ring', injections, etc.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


OOOHHHHHH Please!! I mean it Please!!! Keep their legs closed???? For goodness sakes do you live in a cave, are you part of some group that actually buys that dogma? Are you trolling???????????????????????

YES, YES, YES - provide the pill -
So much more cost efficiant then the alternative which is more human beings.

Originally posted by TheBirdisDone
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

OOOHHHHHH Please!! I mean it Please!!! Keep their legs closed???? For goodness sakes do you live in a cave, are you part of some group that actually buys that dogma? Are you trolling???????????????????????

YES, YES, YES - provide the pill -
So much more cost efficiant then the alternative which is more human beings.

Birth control isn't always for the women that can't keep their legs closed.
It's also for women that want to regulate their period.
Thank god for that.

Instead of once a month, it can be once every three months
Phew

I wish my IUD had been covered, it was expensive but worth it since my husband and I don't have to worry so much on risking pregnancy. So I say yes, birth control (iud's,pills,shots,rings, I'd even include condoms) should be covered.

birth control sould be pushed in every country that its legal in. it shoud be free to anybody who wants some then maybe our out of control population might become stable or even decline. so much suffering could be avoided

reply to post by kittendaydreamer


Funny how there is no rhyme or reason behind what is covered right now.
My wife's IUD was covered but her friends was not.
In some insurance carriers they cover the implants/injections but only if it is by court order.
Others treat it as medication dealt with by the prescription plan.
I wonder what method the carriers use to select what is covered and what is not? and where?

My first double post!

It is my lucky day. . .

reply to post by AnteBellum


Gotcha AB, thanks for the clarity.

Apologies in advance to any offended for such, but I have to side with SonOfLiberty on this one, at least until our financial house (here in the US at least) is in such good order everyone is otherwise taken care of and we've got boatloads of money floating around.

I have libertarian leanings and can't support taking money from all to pay for the benefit of a few. I'm a big fan of personal responsibilty, neither myself nor my girlfriend take any monies from any level of government (that I can think of), and we have managed to NOT get pregnant - on our own dime - while having been together for years.

I would push for other fiscal and social changes that are more-needed first, and which would result in people having more money to pursue these options if they saw fit.

Originally posted by TheBirdisDone
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

OOOHHHHHH Please!! I mean it Please!!! Keep their legs closed???? For goodness sakes do you live in a cave, are you part of some group that actually buys that dogma? Are you trolling???????????????????????

YES, YES, YES - provide the pill -
So much more cost efficiant then the alternative which is more human beings.

Ohhh Please! Please stop expecting me to pay for stuff you want! If you want the pill, PAY FOR IT YOUR DAMN SELF! keep your sticky fingers to yourself. I am not trading parts of MY LIFE so that you don't get pregnant. Exercise some modicum of personal responsibility and self control. Are you a human being or an animal incapable of controlling yourself? If so, then maybe you should just be spayed or neutered as is done to animals incapable of exercising self control. Stop spending hours out of my life for your own selfish convenience. Here is a hint, if you can't get a job, maybe you should not be having sex? Think about that for a minute. Maybe you should find something more constructive to do with your time?

OMG ! You actually pay for birth control !

Thats riddiculous, here in the UK Birth control is free for every woman, whether it be the pill, coil, or even stocking up on condoms.

I am truley shocked that it is not free in the US, how on earth is this empowering women ?!

Oh and to the dude somewhere above on this thread, what do you mean "keep your legs closed"?

Are you kidding ? Women have vey little choice when it comes to matters of the reproductive nature, they have to menstruate fact of life, they also are the ones who carry the baby's.

Would it not be deemed more acceptable seeing as woman cannot help this biological function, that the man keep his legs crossed instead ! Since when was this "her" problem .

Some people need to man up, birth control is around to stay for the best part, and to be fair has palyed a role in helping women to feel more liberated, equal, and in control of their environment

Peace

But the problem is if we don't supply birth control - a rather small expense!
What is the alternative?

Welfare for a mom who keeps popping out kids!
A rather expensive amount once you factor in all the years and added amenities that go along with welfare.

I too pay for everything and I am not advocating giving some a free lunch, but I feel paying for one lunch is cheaper then taking the whole family out for dinner!

Originally posted by AnteBellum
But the problem is if we don't supply birth control - a rather small expense!
What is the alternative?

Welfare for a mom who keeps popping out kids!
A rather expensive amount once you factor in all the years and added amenities that go along with welfare.

I too pay for everything and I am not advocating giving some a free lunch, but I feel paying for one lunch is cheaper then taking the whole family out for dinner!

Which I guess is one of the reasons why it is free here in the UK, costs far more for the state to support a kid, than prescribing the pill.

reply to post by Praetorius


Maybe if you kept me up all night I would agree with you intellectually. But no, I took Sociology 101. I also served our country for 21 years - and you know until recently the VA covered Viagra - but not birth control?? So your tax payer dollars were paying for old male veterans to get it up. We could dither and dather about all this. I know we could spend many years, months and hours working out solutions for our great civilization - but the fact of the matter is our country provides birth control to women in third world countries - are you aware of that???

Personal responsibility is a wonderous and noble thing - and antiquated(sp) like the Puritains. I wish it were not so, but I live in reality. Look at the real world, with real people in it.

Birth control should be available. The equvilant cost of one sortie run in Iraq by my squadron probably would pay for all of the ladies in New England to have their birth control of choice for the next few years.

But Thank you for your personal responsiblity. I am sure you recycle and employ green methods in your way of life too. I still am amused by Sons response about keeping the legs closed. Why does safe an reliable birth control discussions bring these sorts out? I don't like a lot of things my tax payer dollars pay for . . . but I feel safe, reliable family planning methods should be availiable to all.

reply to post by TheBirdisDone

but I feel safe, reliable family planning methods should be availiable to all.

Great, PAY FOR IT. Don't ask me to.

reply to post by TheBirdisDone
First off, I appreciate your service.

Maybe if you kept me up all night I would agree with you intellectually. But no, I took Sociology 101. I also served our country for 21 years - and you know until recently the VA covered Viagra - but not birth control?? So your tax payer dollars were paying for old male veterans to get it up. We could dither and dather about all this. I know we could spend many years, months and hours working out solutions for our great civilization - but the fact of the matter is our country provides birth control to women in third world countries - are you aware of that???

And I don't think they should have provided Viagra to our vets, no offense to them, or be providing birth control in third world countries.

Personal responsibility is a wonderous and noble thing - and antiquated(sp) like the Puritains. I wish it were not so, but I live in reality. Look at the real world, with real people in it.

I disagree. Now, I won't say everyone practices it very well, but I think we'd all be a LOT worse off if it was antiquated and nobody practiced it. And, just because society has moved a certain direction doesn't mean that was the best direction for it to have moved.

Birth control should be available. The equvilant cost of one sortie run in Iraq by my squadron probably would pay for all of the ladies in New England to have their birth control of choice for the next few years.

Fair enough & agreed on the latter part - I definitely believe I'd take much more kindly to taxpayer-funded issues like this if we weren't so deep financially on other issues. And birth control is always available, it's just a matter of if taxpayers should be required to pay for services they themselves won't receive benefit from. I know there may be good motivations behind it, but that doesn't make theft anything but what it it.

But Thank you for your personal responsiblity. I am sure you recycle and employ green methods in your way of life too. I still am amused by Sons response about keeping the legs closed. Why does safe an reliable birth control discussions bring these sorts out? I don't like a lot of things my tax payer dollars pay for . . . but I feel safe, reliable family planning methods should be availiable to all.

I don't mean to upset anyone or start a debate - OP asked for our feelings, and I provided mine, which I doubt I'll change soon and will not seek to make anyone else agree with. I will by no means say I am the best example of personal responsibility in all matters, but that doesn't mean I strive for it any less even when I fail.

As far as what he said, I have to admit I agree with it, even if that view is also antiquated - I'm an aberration and heretic on most topics one way or another

Just to reiterate one of my former points, though, if we changed some other things up in big ways that managed to allow all people to keep more of their own money, I feel said methods WOULD be available to all, even if not provided via taxpayer dollars - other than that taxpayer and their own dollars.

Thanks again for everything. Hope you're being treated right if you're done with your service.

Originally posted by AnteBellum
Anything that directly impacts the health and well-being of the person covered should be covered by health care.

I agree with that. I think it should be covered.

A question, "If birth control were to be left out of universal health control, would women have the basis for a class action suit against the government for discrimination based on sex?"

Not unless they provided for men's birth control and not women's.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


So by your idea, The CDC should be destroyed and Polio, tuberculosis, measles vaccines should not be given out either huh? If the CDC wasn't around, most of us would be dead already.