Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Contraception Coming Soon to a Healthcare Plan Near You?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Contraception Coming Soon to a Healthcare Plan Near You?Page 1 of 1    
My health insurance doesn't pay for tummy tucks or condoms either.

How dare they. What a bunch of discriminatory jerks.

If an insurance company covered condoms and not birth controls, then maybe you'd be on to something. But viagra and birth control are not equivalent products that covering one or the other signals discrimination.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 6
Contraception Coming Soon to a Healthcare Plan Near You?
Posted: 7/21/2011 6:31:24 AM
I'd posted the same info yesterday in an abortion thread...the article came from the NYT's.

Along with contraceptive coverage would be education and training for women of child bearing years...the jyst of the plan to cover contraceptives, as I understood, was to prevent unwanted pregnancy...which leads to abortion, abandonment, and children in the social services system....much more costly options.

Ahhh...here's the NYT's article in part:

To reduce unintended pregnancies, the panel said, insurers should cover the full range of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as sterilization procedures and “education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”

The recommendations came in a report submitted to Ms. Sebelius by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The new health care law says insurers must cover “preventive health services” and cannot charge for them. Ms. Sebelius will decide on a minimum package of essential health benefits, and her decision will not require further action by Congress.

The panel said insurers should be forbidden to charge co-payments for contraceptives and other preventive services because even small charges could deter their use. The recommendation would not help women without insurance.


In addition to contraceptive services for women, the panel recommended that the government require health plans to cover screening to detect domestic violence; screening for H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS; and counseling and equipment to promote breastfeeding, including the free rental of breast pumps.

The panel also said all insurers should be required to cover screening for gestational diabetes in pregnant women; DNA testing for the human papillomavirus as part of cervical cancer screening; and annual preventive-care visits. Such visits could include prenatal care and preconception care, to make sure women are healthy when they become pregnant.

Defending its recommendations on contraceptive coverage, the panel said that nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States were unintended, and that about 40 percent of unintended pregnancies ended in abortion. Thus, it said, greater use of contraception would reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, teenage pregnancy and abortion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/health/policy/20health.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper


And the answer from the Pro-lifer's is "Let em eat cake"

In America there are 1.2 million abortions a year....ranging from RU486 abortion to partial birth abortion...at any one time in the social services system there are 150,000 children waiting for adoption...the cost savings alone...in reductions of unwantd pregnancy should justify coverage for contraceptives.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 9
Contraception Coming Soon to a Healthcare Plan Near You?
Posted: 7/21/2011 1:39:50 PM

So my insurance coverage should cover keeping me from smoking too.


Funny you should say that...it does.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Contraception Coming Soon to a Healthcare Plan Near You?
Posted: 7/21/2011 7:21:57 PM

You’re comparing a tummy tuck to BC? Really? Tummy tucks = cosmetic; condoms are not prescribed by a physician. Although there’s certainly compelling reasons why they also fall under the auspices of “health care.”

hahahahaha

Nice logic. Tummy tucks aren't just cosmetic. It's surgery. Full blown surgery.

Just because doctors aren't involved with condoms doesn't mean a damn thing. For example, surgery as described above. If I have to buy crutches for an injury, they're covered by health insurance, even if not prescribed by a doctor.

The rest of your post is just as riddled with glaringly desperate logic and substantive factual errors as the part I've responded to, but picking apart the whole thing sounds about as productive a use of my time as cutting my lawn with a scissor. Repetitive, annoying, and inefficient.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 12
view profile
History
Contraception Coming Soon to a Healthcare Plan Near You?
Posted: 7/21/2011 8:34:52 PM
You don't have to have doctor's orders for crutches to be covered by insurance. Did you really not know that? Or were you just hoping I didn't? As for the rest, fine: I'll beat my head against the wall on this briefly.


While ovulation isn’t a disease, neither is erectile dysfunction. Erectile dysfunction is symptomatic of other diseases – diabetes, and vascular or hormonal disorders are the primary causes, for which drugs are usually already covered by drug plans

Okay. And what is ovulation "symptomatic" of? Being a woman? I don't think you can treat that.


I would suggest that these drugs could very arguably be considered “preventative maintenance,” and not merely for ED either.

You could argue that. But you'd lose the argument. ED pills provide relief from a medical disorder. What medical disorder does birth control provide relief from? Pregnancy? That's not a disorder. That's actually how the human body is supposed to work.


My drug plan covers (some) smoking cessation aids and prescribed diet aids. Why then, since, strictly speaking, neither smoking nor being overweight (in all but the more extreme cases) are considered diseases either.

Quite simply, the insurance companies have decided in the long run that this would save them money, and is in the company's best interest.


My own plan also covers BC, but not Cialis – the direct opposite scenario.

Then why are you complaining? Or do you just want the government to have even more control over what people can spend money on?


The wisdom of covering birth control through health insurance ought to be obvious. In the US almost half of all pregnancies are unintended, of course, not all of them occur because BC is not available, but at $30 a month, it is often not affordable.

Okay, so why isn't insurance covering condoms? This absurd claim that there's an inequality because two completely different drugs have different coverage is ironic because if insurance DID cover birth control (and not condoms) then there actually truly would be an inequality.


To deprive them of control over this basic life circumstance is to render them second-class citizens.

It's not denying them control. They absolutely still have that control. They can choose to pay for it or not, just as I have control over whether I use condoms, by going to the store and buying them.


Birth control is a medical, health issue, not a moral one, so of course it should be covered.

Sure. So is eating enough veggies in your diet. But insurance doesn't cover that either.
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 13
Contraception Coming Soon to a Healthcare Plan Near You?
Posted: 7/22/2011 5:13:53 AM
In the US almost half of all pregnancies are unintended, of course, not all of them occur because BC is not available, but at $30 a month, it is often not affordable


I agree that $30 a month is not affordable for many women who need contraceptives. In the area I live in, the health department provides free birth control pills for a year and both they and Planned Parenthood provide the pill at considerably discounted prices. (Around $12)

The co-pay is so high on my prescription coverage, that if I still needed them, insurance would not save me much anyhow.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 14
Contraception Coming Soon to a Healthcare Plan Near You?
Posted: 7/22/2011 5:48:58 AM
The cost of my health insurance for me, 54, and a daughter is $13,000/year...the perscription co-pay is a percentage of the retail cost...

The problem is that there is no health insurance competition...there are something like 5 group health insurer's in America..only 3 participate in my state...they are regulated state by state...every state has different mandated coverages and different regulatory requirements...every state has different licensing requirements....and health insurance is a highly regulated industry.

So, with no real competition and 50 states worth of different regulatory cost added...and heath insurance is a for profit industry...it's no wonder this necessary shyte caosts so gawddayum much....

Is a tummy tuck the same thing as gastric by-pass???yanno, what fat people do to become surgically thin...a covered expense...frankly, these are all bullshyte arguments....the American consumer is getting raked over the coals by corporate pharma and corporate insurance companies...and the GOP answer is to throw the baby out with the bath water on health care reform...ya can't tweek it...ya got start from scratch...in other words-wait another 40 years till the country crumbles under the massive weight of health care related costs....the new country will be called Aetna, or Cigna, or Pfizer....

Let's stop funding Planned Parenthood...because they do abortions...of course, our tax payer moneies can't, by law, be used to pay for an abortion...but, that detail isn't an issue for the GOP rhetoric...

So, let's unfund the one support structure women have for BC-Planned Parenthood.

And as to mandated BC healtcare coverage...no F'in way....I only care about the aborted fetus...I want to chose life for all...of course, all those unwanted kids that are born can fend for themselves...my holy obligation has been fulfilled.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 15
Contraception Coming Soon to a Healthcare Plan Near You?
Posted: 7/23/2011 1:04:41 PM
Based on the estimates of the direct medical costs of unplanned
pregnancy, researchers found that contraceptive use saves
nearly $19 billion in direct medical costs each year.6 The cost
of preventing an unplanned pregnancy is typically an estimate
of the cost of providing family planning services to the target
population divided by the number of pregnancies believed to
have been prevented.
Several studies have specifically explored the cost effectiveness
of publicly funded family planning services. A recent
analysis of public-sector cost savings that resulted from publicly
funded family planning services in the United States determined
that 1.4 million unplanned pregnancies were prevented
nationwide among women eligible to receive publicly funded
family planning services.a The prevention of these unplanned
pregnancies led to a total public sector savings of $4.3 billion.
Therefore, for every $1 spent on publicly provided family planning
services, $4.02 are saved.

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/FastFacts_DirectCosts_UnplPreg.pdf
 blartfast
Joined: 2/21/2014
Msg: 16
Contraception Coming Soon to a Healthcare Plan Near You?
Posted: 6/30/2014 11:50:57 AM
In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that HHS may not force closely-held corporations to provide their employees insurance coverage for certain contraceptives, if these interfere with the embryo in a way that violates the religious beliefs of the people who own those corporations.


The Court struck down an HHS rule requiring employers to provide this coverage

No, they only ruled that the closely-held corporations can't be made to PAY for it. They did not overturn the requirement for it to be included in policies.

The ruling did NOT include the right to exclude policies which do provide it.

Alito, in the opinion, was more than happy to pass that cost on to every other tax-payer except the corporation and directly and clearly said so.

So now, thanks to the conservative justices, not only do conservatives, including religious conservatives, who object to the ACA have to subsidize all those "liberal, democrat-voting welfare frauds" for their health care coverage they may now find themselves ALSO directly subsidizing the contraception coverage their big-money religious compatriots refuse to pay for, just like they do for the religious non-profits.

Once again, in attempting to "screw Obama" they have succeeded only in "screwing" themselves. Is this irony or poetic justice?
 blartfast
Joined: 2/21/2014
Msg: 17
Contraception Coming Soon to a Healthcare Plan Near You?
Posted: 6/30/2014 7:16:29 PM

That is simply false.

Actually, it is entirely true

The majority invalidated the HHS regulation

No they didn't. The regulation still exists and it is still applicable. They only ruled that Hobby Lobby could be exempted from the regulation requiring them to pay for it or pay a penalty instead. Insurance plans are still required to make the contraceptives available to those who want it regardless of Hobby Lobby's objection, Hobby Lobby just can't be required to pay for it.

Nothing now requires such corporations to include that coverage in their policies

But the insurer must still make it available to any who want it without regard for Hobby Lobby's objection. Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for it but it still must be available from the plan's insurer.

You misstate how the accommodation for non-profits with religious objections works.

No I didn't. I stated it quite accurately.

As the passage quoted above shows, just the opposite is true.

No, it shows just exactly what I've said. Contraceptive coverage must still be provided, the employer just doesn't have to pay for it.

it it not the government that would pick up the tab for contraceptive coverage, but the insurer.

If that route is applied, but even then it is still rolled into the general costs of business like any other expense and distributed across the entire pool. Your rates will subsidize the refusal of these employers to pay for it.

If they go the other route Alito showed such a fond taste for then it will be covered by the gov't at the expense of your taxes.

Either way, you are subsidizing these employers who are using this "religious objection" canard to avoid paying it themselves.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Contraception Coming Soon to a Healthcare Plan Near You?