U.S. health department approves free birth control, including morning after pill

www.fox43.com...

The article states birth control will be added to the list of preventative health services to women under obamacare. It does give an opt out for religious reasons. A report by the U.S. Institute of Medicine completed a month ago wants all forms of birth control covered, including the morning after pill.

EDIT: Maybe this has something to do with pressure to defund planned parenthood? With that money leaving from the birth control pool, maybe big pharma wants it replaced from somewhere else. And of course there's always the old stand by reason of population control, me and my roomie were talking about this and wondering if this will lead to free sterilizations as well.

14 trillion in debt and our government gives yet more handouts. Great! Just load that on top of the heaping pile already on the backs of taxpayers.

I can't seem to find it in the constitution where birth control is the responsibility of the federal government. Maybe a power delegated to the states, but it's not for the feds to get involved.

This crusade Obama seems to be on in these areas is already having unintended consequences. A major regional hospital complex close to me here suddenly dropped all procedures relating to birth control, female and male. A relative had been scheduled for one when the policy changed. Obama is backing Catholic hospitals into a hard corner and forcing them to choose between Faith they don't see wiggle room with and Government mandated neutrality in anything moral. Something has to give eventually, I suppose.

Since when did the Government have a place by any authority defining it's powers to be involved with matters at this fine a level to begin with? Certainly not from the Federal level.

reply to post by wiandiii


Does this mean I could get my next 5 year Mirena IUD covered and not have to pay $200+ w/insurance- way more w/o insurance for it? That would be wonderful, still where are they going to fund the cost of the different forms of birth control from? Would sterilization be covered under it because the cost difference between vasectomies and hysterectomies is huge (granted there is a big difference in how invasive the procedures are).

Well, birth control is part of my healthcare. So if I am part of a healthcare plan I expect it should include this in it. All of it. Different options for different needs.

Those that don't believe in birth control or the morning after pill don't need to use it.

Just like I won't be getting free flu vaccines even though they will be part of the new healthcare.

A woman who cannot afford birth control pills, obviously can't afford to take care of a child. Hence, this reduces WIC, food stamps, and Medicaid expenditures to a degree. I assure you vast studies will be done to test the expenditures vs. savings aspect.

It's about money, of course. I thought this would make most folks happy. Think of all the money you will save, not having to support someone else's child.

Originally posted by wiandiii
www.fox43.com...

The article states birth control will be added to the list of preventative health services to women under obamacare. It does give an opt out for religious reasons. A report by the U.S. Institute of Medicine completed a month ago wants all forms of birth control covered, including the morning after pill.

EDIT: Maybe this has something to do with pressure to defund planned parenthood? With that money leaving from the birth control pool, maybe big pharma wants it replaced from somewhere else. And of course there's always the old stand by reason of population control, me and my roomie were talking about this and wondering if this will lead to free sterilizations as well

Opt out of free birth control for religious reasons? Is there actually a religion that would rather pay for its birth control?

Cheaper or free birth control will cut down on unwanted pregnancies.

It's a FACT that this will SAVE MONEY: LINK

Isn't it ironic that the anti-big-government crowd are the ones who normally scream the loudest for cost cutting...but when it's actually being done in a sensible way, it's suddenly not good anymore. What a bunch of hypocrites

Anyone who has children know how expensive they are, and guess what, if parents can't care and pay for them, ultimately, it's the government paying for it. I'd much rather have them pay for anti-baby pills than feed and clothe dumpster babies...especially if it saves over $5bil every single year. You'd have to be a complete fool to argue against his!!

To those fools who say "keep it zipped up": Yeah, that worked sooooooo great with some of the "abstinence advocates" like Bristol Palin

Wow, just WOW. It is ABOUT TIME!

Here is some info for those of you complaining. Maybe the information will help you see what's going on.

Health insurance companies cover the cost of viagra, which most likely is the culprit of a % of unwanted pregnancies, but many health insurance companies do not cover the cost of birth control for women.

Studies have shown that women of reproductive age spend about two-thirds more than men on out-of-pocket health-care costs. Birth control and reproductive health-care services are believed to account for much of the difference.

The birth control pill is not cheap, and the astronomical cost puts it out of reach for many women, leaving them without birth control. The average cost of the pill is $30 a month plus the cost of the Dr.s visit to get a prescription.

What studies have shown is that of every dollar in public funds spent in family planning, between $4 and $14 in public funds is saved in health care and pregnancies.

Basically if you are a sexually impotent man who seeks renewed sexual vigor via Viagra each week, you are most likely being fully or partially reimbursed by health insurance.

If you are a woman seeking birth control, you may be out of luck.

While many health insurers are guaranteeing free or low-cost romps to men, they are by and large denying most women the contraceptive coverage that is a fundamental health care necessity for 20 - 30 years of their adult lives (the alternative being, on average, a potential 8 - 15 pregnancies in a woman’s lifetime). According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 33 million American women are in need of contraceptive services and supplies, yet most women using birth control pay for it themselves.

I think viagra should NOT be paid for and birth control should be paid for. That would be the intelligent thing for this country to do.

Harm None
Peace

It has always been obvious that the major problem with abortion is that the baby is supposed to be a punishment from god for having sex -- that is why there is an outcry against planned parenthood and free birth control pills. The implication is that somebody may be sharing some closeness with another human -- and that is blasphemy by god blasphemy -- Sex is going to happen it is going to happen in the best of times and places and the worst of times and places. Keep you pants zipped up and just be celibate - is the cry of an idiot.

You would think the anti-choice people would be for birth control being easily available -- they aren't -- what could their motivation possible be??

Originally posted by tkwasny
I can't seem to find it in the constitution where birth control is the responsibility of the federal government. Maybe a power delegated to the states, but it's not for the feds to get involved.

C'mon, everybody knows that's written in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections.


Don't you know how to read penumbras?

I rather pay for their pills now than pay for ALL of their kids needs with our tax money until they turn 18 if the mom or dad is not able to work. That's how I see it.
Also, for the religious types, do you rather them have abortions or take the pill?
They are going to have "adulterous" unprotected sex no matter what your beliefs are so, might as well prevent the unwanted pregnancy this way.

reply to post by wiandiii


I thought we need more people to fund the Social Security pyramid scam? Maybe the UN can take this up for human rights abuses and have the UN attack us? It is as good enough a reason to be in Libya.

reply to post by wiandiii


What a joke. It is nothing but a step in the grand scheme of forcing folks out of private insurance. Insurance companys will simply begin not to accept women when they apply for policies, afterall the administration has essentially classified their gender as a preexisting condition.

I have a friend who is an OBGYN and he quit standard practice and, with a few doctors started their own. They won't take Medicaid patients. He loses money on Medicaid patients and of the half dozen times he has been sued in his career, winning and not settling each time, every time it was a Medicaid patient who sued him.

This is just timing to force more and more folks out of private insurance before the healthcare law hits and insurance firms can't deny for pre existing conditions.

Also, where is my free annual prostrate exam?

reply to post by dolphinfan


Oh really? Then your friend is quite alone in this position. I have relatives who are physicians, and they assert that Medicaid is quite the little money maker. Those little doc-in-a-box places? Medicaid will only let so many of them in a town be approved for Medicaid. The physicians compete for it.

And for hospitals? It's a veritable cash cow.

***************************

BUT. We tend to go after the wrong people here. The fault is not with the provision of Medicaid. It should be about HOSPITALS who abuse the hell out of it. During the course of my work, I asked for a patient's itemized statement from the hospital, who was on Medicaid, and who had just had a baby.

This really pisses the hospital off, but they have to do it. Of course, they drag their feet, and it can take months to get it, but they have to produce it, once it's requested. I think we should ALL request them, and then publish them in newspapers. Anyway.

I was HORRIFIED when I saw this bill which was as thick as Finnegan's Wake. Well, nearly.

I won't list everything. I wish I still had it I would scan it and post it.

But there was this:

$12.00 for a sanitary pad.

$350.00 for one injection. For all I know, they bill private insurance companies at the same rate. But anybody can see this is thievery. Especially for the sanitary pad.

As for your PSA test..........Why don't you just let the hospital bill your insurance company for it, and try and not be such a big baby, huh? You can opt out. Please do. Save the .03 cents to go towards your prostate exam?

Originally posted by spyder550
You would think the anti-choice people would be for birth control being easily available -- they aren't -- what could their motivation possible be??

Their motivation is obviously CONTROL. And why would anti-choice people support making a CHOICE about reproduction? They want to remove the choice, not offer it. Taking birth control is a reproductive CHOICE. Anti-choice people don't support such things.

I was really glad to hear about this progress in health care. It's about time we stop 'preaching' birth control for the responsible and start making it more accessible.

Originally posted by micmerci
14 trillion in debt and our government gives yet more handouts. Great! Just load that on top of the heaping pile already on the backs of taxpayers.

Did you think before you posted this?

You do realize this will HELP with govt handouts! People won't be having kids they can't afford.

I am all for this!

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by dolphinfan

 

But there was this:

$12.00 for a sanitary pad.

$350.00 for one injection. For all I know, they bill private insurance companies at the same rate. But anybody can see this is thievery. Especially for the sanitary pad.

WHAT! You can buy a few packs of pads for 12 bucks!

I had asked for an itemized bill one time because I couldn't believe the charge for the visit. They charged me 150 bucks for a PRILOSEC pill for acid reflux!!! I was PISSED and outraged and why? Because I already had the pill AT home and it didn't work yet they charged me 150 bucks for one pill!!!

Yes they sure as heck don't like giving itemized bills...and why? Because they know their fees are insane!

I went to the ER one time with allergies to a dog, BAD allergies. I was turned AWAY because I had no insurance. They wanted 400 bucks UP FRONT to proceed. They had already weighed me, taken my temp and my blood pressure.....and you know what that cost me?? 1500 bucks! YEAH I got a bill for that AFTER they refused to help me cause I had no insurance....I was having trouble breathing and my entire face was swollen and I had hives. Her reply was well you aren't dying you can still talk! If this lady knew me she would know I'd find a way to talk on my damn death bed.


I was shocked! What if i died or had some kind of anaphalactic shock as a result of the allergy?

I have since told them to shove that bill where the sun don't shine. Why should I pay for 5mins of service when they did absolutely nothing!! Sorry but weighing, taking my temp and my blood pressure doesnt equate to 1500 frigging dollars!

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


On items that require on-going, multiple appointments such as pregnancy, Medicaid is a loser. The transactional medicine works and doctors make money on that stuff, but if a doctor feels it warranted to see a paitient more frequently than Medicaid allows, which is often the case, they do it on their own dime.

The reall challenge on the patients end of course is that problematic pregnancys which often come from women in lower income communities are losing access to doctors.

So for some specialities, Medicaid is great. For others, it is a money loser.