• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health plans ordered to cover birth control without co-pays

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control without charging co-pays or deductibles starting Aug. 1, the Obama administration announced Friday.
The final regulation retains the approach federal health officials proposed last summer, despite the deluge of complaints from religious groups and congressional Republicans that has poured in since then. Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, but religious-affiliated hospitals and universities only get a one-year delay and must comply by Aug. 1, 2013.

Health plans ordered to cover birth control without co-pays - The Hill's Healthwatch
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm gonna ignore the religious angle on this because frankly, it's not important here. Two things are:

1. The "cost" of BC is going to skyrocket. You, the end purchaser won't see this, because it's "free". But your insurance company will. Producers of the BC know that they can raise the prices and it MUST BE PAID FOR, cost controls jsut **** the bed. GJ Obama and Co.

2. Why stop at BC, hell why not dictate all treatments are co-pay free, why just BC? That's so sexist and unfair.
 
Should I not be able to get free condoms?
 
MrVicchio said:
Okay, I'm gonna ignore the religious angle on this because frankly, it's not important here. Two things are:

1. The "cost" of BC is going to skyrocket. You, the end purchaser won't see this, because it's "free". But your insurance company will. Producers of the BC know that they can raise the prices and it MUST BE PAID FOR, cost controls jsut **** the bed. GJ Obama and Co.

2. Why stop at BC, hell why not dictate all treatments are co-pay free, why just BC? That's so sexist and unfair.
Click to expand...


1. How many birth control can a woman use each month, seriously? IUD will last for 5 years. And if the costs is what prevent some women from using them, then paying for them will more than pay for itself in terms of preventing unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and birth and adoption.

2. It is sexist, they should make condoms available too, it's useful to both men and women and prevent STD.
 
MrVicchio said:
Okay, I'm gonna ignore the religious angle on this because frankly, it's not important here. Two things are:

1. The "cost" of BC is going to skyrocket. You, the end purchaser won't see this, because it's "free". But your insurance company will. Producers of the BC know that they can raise the prices and it MUST BE PAID FOR, cost controls jsut **** the bed. GJ Obama and Co.

2. Why stop at BC, hell why not dictate all treatments are co-pay free, why just BC? That's so sexist and unfair.
Click to expand...
Great. More orders issued by our rulers.

I know it's a crazy idea, but I think that the copay should be agreed upon by the sellers and buyers of insurance. Why in God's name does the federal government need to dictate the terms of insurance contracts?
 
All this does is spread co-pays between those who need the B.C. and those who do not. The cost of the insurance is going to go up for all.

How does it not make sense that those who utilize their health care more than others pays a higher percentage of the costs? Is this not the idea concerning charging smokers more than non smokers?
 
Providing free BC is a no-brainer for costs-control. It costs far less to help a a man or woman who cannot afford BC to prevent a pregnancy than to provide OB services, pediatric services and likely WIC (food supplement for low-income children and pregnant women), Food Stamps, subsidized housing, etc. If the man or woman cannot afford BC, they will most certainly be eligible for Medicaid, WIC, FS, and income-based help with housing.

I hear conservatives screaming "personal responsibility". If I have a couple of kids, don't want to have more and have to choose between purchasing BC and keeping a roof over my kids head and food in their tummies.... I'm choosing my kids. Many families have been faced with this dilemma in the past because insurers refused to cover BC or had extraordinarily high co-pays for BC.

Perhaps allowing true free-market forces to intervene in drug pricing would stop drug companies from raising prices. Let prescription drug providers buy foreign drugs and see how fast all drug costs plummet. US citizens pay far more for drugs than citizens of other countries.
 
Last edited:
I think the federal government should pay for mandatory vasectomies and tubal ligations of all people running for public office. I'd support that. That wouldn't apply to Democrat men however because by the time they become elected they don't have any balls.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Providing free BC is a no-brainer for costs-control. It costs far less to help a a man or woman who cannot afford BC to prevent a pregnancy than to provide OB services, pediatric services and likely WIC (food supplement for low-income children and pregnant women), Food Stamps, subsidized housing, etc. If the man or woman cannot afford BC, they will most certainly be eligible for Medicaid, WIC, FS, and income-based help with housing.
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess that those described are not among those who will be getting free B.C.
 
Why don't the USA government mandate castration for all male USA citizens. That would be a one time cost for each male citizen instead of on-going costs for eash female citizen. They could further reduce the cost by allowing anyone to perform castrations. Many farm kids learn this skill at an early age by castrating calves, pigs, and sheep. ;)

.
 
Birth control is cheaper than pregnancy.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Providing free BC is a no-brainer for costs-control. It costs far less to help a a man or woman who cannot afford BC to prevent a pregnancy than to provide OB services, pediatric services and likely WIC (food supplement for low-income children and pregnant women), Food Stamps, subsidized housing, etc. If the man or woman cannot afford BC, they will most certainly be eligible for Medicaid, WIC, FS, and income-based help with housing.

I hear conservatives screaming "personal responsibility". If I have a couple of kids, don't want to have more and have to choose between purchasing BC and keeping a roof over my kids head and food in their tummies.... I'm choosing my kids. Many families have been faced with this dilemma in the past because insurers refused to cover BC or had extraordinarily high co-pays for BC.

Perhaps allowing true free-market forces to intervene in drug pricing would stop drug companies from raising prices. Let prescription drug providers buy foreign drugs and see how fast all drug costs plummet. US citizens pay far more for drugs than citizens of other countries.
Click to expand...
You don't get that Government mandated "free" means the costs go waaaay up. It's just how **** works. Always it is, good intentions are the reasoning for such stupidity.
 
MrVicchio said:
You don't get that Government mandated "free" means the costs go waaaay up. It's just how **** works. Always it is, good intentions are the reasoning for such stupidity.
Click to expand...
It goes up because the US laws protecting drug company profits keep them from having to sell the meds at reasonable price. An example: After a pulmonary embolism, I had to receive two injections a day (in my tummy :shock: ) of a generic drug called Enoxiparin. My cost in the US was $95 per pre-filled syringe. I have a friend from a diet-related BB who is a Canadian pharmacist - the cost of that drug in Canada is $29/ syringe.

BC pills costs far less in other countries. The name-brand BC my youngest daughter uses costs $39/month in the US and $8 in Canada. If insurers had the option of buying meds from other countries, the costs in the US would drop dramatically as US sellers had to bring down their prices to move their product.
 
1Perry said:
All this does is spread co-pays between those who need the B.C. and those who do not. The cost of the insurance is going to go up for all.

How does it not make sense that those who utilize their health care more than others pays a higher percentage of the costs? Is this not the idea concerning charging smokers more than non smokers?
Click to expand...

It's the idea with insurance, to spread the payments among everyone in the pool. The idea with smokers is to penalise them for smoking which is bad. Using contraceptive is something that should be encouraged.
 
MrVicchio said:
Okay, I'm gonna ignore the religious angle on this because frankly, it's not important here. Two things are:

1. The "cost" of BC is going to skyrocket. You, the end purchaser won't see this, because it's "free". But your insurance company will. Producers of the BC know that they can raise the prices and it MUST BE PAID FOR, cost controls jsut **** the bed. GJ Obama and Co.
Click to expand...

yep - as did everything else that went out of our hands and into the hands of our insurance companies - that's why everything's so expensive as it is.
 
nonpareil said:
It's the idea with insurance, to spread the payments among everyone in the pool. The idea with smokers is to penalise them for smoking which is bad. Using contraceptive is something that should be encouraged.
Click to expand...

It is still being spread with co-pays. I shouldn't have to pay a co-pay for my heart medicine (which I don't actually use) becuase it's a good thing to take it. It sure is cheaper than a transplant.
 
Birth control is not always 100% at least it wasn't back in the early 1960s. If we keep Planned Parenthood in our districts, they will offer health information and often prescriptions for Birth Control.

We all have the choice of taking a chance when we make love and if we are fast on our feet and can run like hell to a "Morning After" drug store, we should make it safely. Choice is always the single factor for our success in protecting ourselves and our already born children. The Religious Right Candidates currently running for POTUS, want to ban Planned Parenthood and then all birth control. They do this for Jesus and that is their choice.....but it is our choice to ignore them.

If anyone here is under the age of 13, pay no attention to that old lady behind the green curtain.
 
Unfortunately - many are determined on making it law so then it's not just a personal choice to satisfy - it's their mandate centered around their beliefs.
 
1Perry said:
All this does is spread co-pays between those who need the B.C. and those who do not. The cost of the insurance is going to go up for all.

How does it not make sense that those who utilize their health care more than others pays a higher percentage of the costs? Is this not the idea concerning charging smokers more than non smokers?
Click to expand...

Or a better question, how can you insure against someone choosing to use birth control?
It's a freebie and it still doesn't make any sense.

Check this out people, insurance exists to mitigate loss in an unforeseen event.
That is the entire purpose for insurance, it does not exist to provide you with a bunch of "free" stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom