More from the war on birth control!

[mickeyfan2]

Indeed, it affirms that laws may not make birth control illegal. It does not stipulate how and by whom it must be provided.

Bingo, but don't rain on her parade.

 

[mickeyfan2]

In fact, I would bet that you would find that many health insurance plans that do not pay for birth control pills will cover them if pregnancy would cause a medical risk. I know it to be the case with at least two people.

If getting pregnant again was a medical danger to me, DH would be at the Drs. the next day getting snipped (by his own choice) so I would not need these pills. There are other ways to stop having any more children than the ones you already have.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Hmm but lots of companies cover Viagara?? Go figure.

I wanted to get an IUD after #3 was born. My insurance did not cover it. It was approx $500 and stayed in for 10 years.

They would cover a vesectomy and or tubal ligation.

Well things happened and I was pregnat with #4 before I saved up the money for the IUD. So instead of my insurance paying $500 for an iud, they paid $30,000 for the birth of my son and a few thousand for a vasectomy for hubby.

Why did you not get the vasectomy after #3, since they covered it?

 

[VSL]

*is glad she lives in the UK* (NHS system, and you only pay if you want private healthcare..)
*was conceived on the pill*
*has been on the pill since 16yrs old and is coming off this month*

IMO, apart from reasons of health (pregnancy not included as pregnancy is not a sickness and if it would cause you problems, there are numerous other ways to prevent it!), I don't really understand why BC should be provided by health insurance. It's your body - surely BC is a privilidge, not a right?

 

[mickeyfan2]

It seems to me that you are mad because the inhalers are not covered , not that I can blame you for that because that would tick me off too ,

No I am not mad, just pointing out that many of us pay for meds ourselves and life does go on.

Bottom line is healthcare should be the same for everyone and the decision to follow or get a treatment should be left to the patient and doctor , not insurance company or employers to decide what to offer and what they will pay for.

Sorry I am 100% against National Health care, so I disagree with you here.

 

[Mskanga]

Sorry I am 100% against National Health care, so I disagree with you here.

May I ask why you are against it ?

 

[katerkat]

No, because condoms are over the counter.

You mean there's an over-the-counter solution to this problem*? Great! So I guess we don't need to worry about the insurance companies.

I don't get it - the companies/government isn't saying you can't use the Pill. They're just not paying for it. They don't pay for my condoms, either. I suck it up and buy them. It would be GREAT if I could use the Pill, as my insurer does cover it, but the hormones are not compatible with my body. So I pay for what works, because we don't want a second child for a while.

*Yes, I realize for some women it's medically necessary; I'm not referring to them. I think the majority just use it for birth control, though.

 

[amarberry]

Sorry I pay $2000/qtr for health insurance and my asthma meds are not covered. One inhaler alone is $225/month. Sorry that is more needed then BC pills and way more expensive. I adjust my spending to pay for my meds and those who want to have sex (BC, ED) need to pay for theirs too. My not breathing for a day is far more detremental to my health than your not having sex that day.

Well, I'm sorry your health insurance doesn't pay for your asthma meds. That completely sucks, but that wasn't the point that I was trying to make.

Maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough. First of all, my BCP have actually been covered for the last 3 or 4 years. Before that, they weren't, so I spent several years paying $30 or so out of pocket for the generic version of my pill. I worked for a large company that made a business decision to include birth control pill coverage (shortly before Illinois, my home state, mandated coverage). What made me mad about the BCP coverage issue was that virtually every other medication (including Viagra) was covered. I suppose it was my choice to be on BCP because, at the time, I didn't want to get pregnant and BCP have a high effectiveness rate and are convenient. However, there are A LOT of women who are on BCP (and not having sex) for medical reasons like endrometriosis, heavy bleeding, cramping, etc. I'm sure that many of the women would tell you that the BCP is a medical necessity to them.

To me, it doesn't seem fair that women who are on the pill for medical necessity should have to pay for it when the insurance companies are more than happy to pay for a lot of other medications used by others for not as serious of medical issues. When I was younger, my insurance paid for prescription acne medication, but not my birth control pills. Having acne in my 20's might have made me depressed, but it was far from a medical emergency.

I guess what I am trying to say is that BCP have long been singled out on health insurance plans as a medication that is not covered for various economic and moral reasons. I just don't agree with that. Insurance with prescription coverage should cover all medications prescribed by doctors within what every economic perameters (copays) they set in the policy. BTW, every health insurance plan that I have been on would have paid for asthma medication. I would just have to make my co-pay which currently is $5 for generic, $10 for name brand, and 20% of "premium" medications.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Yes, private companies who receive absolutely no money from the government have the right, at present, to refuse to cover birth control. However, IMO, if they receive even a dime from any type of governmental agency they should have to cover birth control.

So, if an insurance company doesn't want to cover birth control due to religeous beliefs, that's fine. But they better not be able to bid for any government contracts (including schools, local government and any organizations/businesses that receive any governmental funding at all). A business who refuses to offer birth control due to religeous principles better have absolutely zero business with any governmental agency or any other business that receives governmental funding.

Oh, and not that it should matter, but there also many of us who don't primarily use birth control for family planning. For me it's medically necessary due to pain from endometriosis and ovarian cysts.

Not flaming you--but out of curiosity--what makes your pain any more a legitimate reason to have something covered than someone else for different condition isn't covered if the insurance company even receive one cent of funding from the government. I don't get it. What does a federal contribution have to do with entitlement to have meds paid for that ease pain?

I have issues for which my insurance puts limitations or outright refuses remedies--b/c not everything is considered of medical necessity..or to reduce their costs, they just don't cover it.

In my case--I had PT due to a back problem earlier that was extended after an auto accident. That was covered until the auto accident when auto insurance took over. Then I had knee surgery in October--and PT was not covered b/c I used up my allocation even though it was for something different. We paid for 3 visits OOP (we were charged a reduced rate for not filing insurance--but still) then I switched to a program they had where I rehabilitated myself but under their supervision. Let's just say post surgery--I couldn't walk and my leg was painfully stuck in a position that made me the little crooked lady. It is sucks but it is a business decision on the insurance company to place limitations to reduce their claims.

Insurers don't do lots of things--but that is the breaks. They cannot cover EVERYTHING. They too would like to actually make some money.

Their reasons do not have to be religious--it can be purely regarding the bottom line.

I'm sure national healthcare would have limitations as well.

We are entitled to good health--but sometimes that burden is on us to pay for it.

 

[MAKmom]

Just to clarify : it's ONLY 36 hour a month you need to stop having sex to be safe? To be really safe It's 3 days not having sex .

If you really need it & can't afford it go to Planned Parenthood.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Just to clarify : it's ONLY 36 hour a month you need to stop having sex to be safe? To be really safe It's 3 days not having sex .

If you really need it & can't afford it go to Planned Parenthood.

Well--technically true, practically it needs to be longer.

You can never predict when ovulation will take place--so there is a window you should abstain until you have ovulated.


(We practice NFP--so just wanted to clarify that).

 

[katerkat]

Just to clarify : it's ONLY 36 hour a month you need to stop having sex to be safe? To be really safe It's 3 days not having sex .

If you really need it & can't afford it go to Planned Parenthood.

Uh, no - if it were only 36 hours, my son wouldn't be here. (He's not an accident, we just didn't have much time that month.) And, technically, using FAM/NFP, I believe it's an 8 day no-sex window? I haven't used it since Russ was conceived.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Uh, no - if it were only 36 hours, my son wouldn't be here. (He's not an accident, we just didn't have much time that month.) And, technically, using FAM/NFP, I believe it's an 8 day no-sex window? I haven't used it since Russ was conceived.

We've been told from day 7 after LMP until after ovulation has concluded..can be anywhere from 4 days if you ovulate right way to 2 weeks.

But yes--to someone who doesn't study it--that 3-day window would be trouble b/c you never know when it will be and it can be different from month to month.

 

[mill4023]

Let me stir the pot....My current insurance will pay for Viagra but not birth control. Where does this fit in your theory? Just something to think about.

Obviously neither one is "necessary".
But Viagra is used to treat a medical disorder, while birth control pills are not.
By definition, Viagra is a medicine and bc pills are not.

Personally, I have no problem at all with insurance companies paying for birth control. In fact, I think they should provide that coverage because it seems much more economical than paying for a pregnancy and delivery. Plus, I think making birth control pills more easily available to everyone is a good thing. I just don't think it is an entitlement and I don't think insurance companies should be forced to pay for something that is not a medical treatment for a disorder.
The bottom line is that I think jodifla's belief that there is a war against birth control is ridiculous. The vast majority of those jodifla would classify as the "evil religious right", are not opposed to birth control at all. Being opposed to abortion and handing out condoms to 12 year olds does NOT mean someone is against birth control.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Hmm but lots of companies cover Viagara?? Go figure.

I wanted to get an IUD after #3 was born. My insurance did not cover it. It was approx $500 and stayed in for 10 years.

They would cover a vesectomy and or tubal ligation.

Well things happened and I was pregnat with #4 before I saved up the money for the IUD. So instead of my insurance paying $500 for an iud, they paid $30,000 for the birth of my son and a few thousand for a vasectomy for hubby.

Wow!! That's an expensive hospital you went to!!! Did your son have problems or did your basic deivery cost that much? (Sorry to be nosy, but WOW, that seems like a lot!!!!---For the vasectomy too!))

 

[tw1nsmom]

Not flaming you--but out of curiosity--what makes your pain any more a legitimate reason to have something covered than someone else for different condition isn't covered if the insurance company even receive one cent of funding from the government. I don't get it. What does a federal contribution have to do with entitlement to have meds paid for that ease pain?

I have issues for which my insurance puts limitations or outright refuses remedies--b/c not everything is considered of medical necessity..or to reduce their costs, they just don't cover it.

In my case--I had PT due to a back problem earlier that was extended after an auto accident. That was covered until the auto accident when auto insurance took over. Then I had knee surgery in October--and PT was not covered b/c I used up my allocation even though it was for something different. We paid for 3 visits OOP (we were charged a reduced rate for not filing insurance--but still) then I switched to a program they had where I rehabilitated myself but under their supervision. Let's just say post surgery--I couldn't walk and my leg was painfully stuck in a position that made me the little crooked lady. It is sucks but it is a business decision on the insurance company to place limitations to reduce their claims.

Insurers don't do lots of things--but that is the breaks. They cannot cover EVERYTHING. They too would like to actually make some money.

Their reasons do not have to be religious--it can be purely regarding the bottom line.

I'm sure national healthcare would have limitations as well.

We are entitled to good health--but sometimes that burden is on us to pay for it.

First of all, when questioned, many insurers/companies that don't cover birth control will tell you that they don't due to moral/religious beliefs. IF! they are covering comparable conditions/medications (Viagra, vascectemies...men can be in charge of their reproductive health and women can't?...and before you say it, some of the same companies who don't cover BC also won't cover tubals, but do cover viagra and vascectemies), then they are discriminating against women and those with beliefs other than their own.

Once you receive government money (particularly federal), it comes with strings attached. One of which is an agreement to not discriminate based on gender, race, and religion. Yes, there are laws against discrimination for everyone, they become more stringent when you're a government contractor.

As for pain reduction and BC, the fact that I would be in pain is secondary to the fact that without BC my abdomen would be filled with endometrial debree that could coat all my lower organs (they've even found endometriosis attached to lungs in more severe cases), and I could develop cysts that could be life threatening if they ruptured. The pain and the reduction of it are symptoms, not the actual problem.

I'll also reiterate what I said in a previous post. My objections are philosophical and done in principle. We are fortunate that we are in a position to always be able to afford birth control. Our insurance pays for it to the same level it pays for comparable drugs. If they didn't we would pay completely out of pocket. We're not sponging off anyone. We pay all insurance expenses for us and our one employee. At present, we've elected to have only 50% prescription coverage. If we canceled prescription coverage I of course, wouldn't expect to have the insurance pay for my BC...just as they wouldn't pay for any other drugs.

 

[kbkids]

Wow!! That's an expensive hospital you went to!!! Did your son have problems or did your basic deivery cost that much? (Sorry to be nosy, but WOW, that seems like a lot!!!!---For the vasectomy too!))

Yeh, no kidding. DD spent six weeks in NICU, and our total bill (hers and mine) was only $60,000 (insurance covered it).

Our insurance would not cover a vasectomy for my DH but would cover a tubal for me (because it was life-threatening for me to be pregnant again). We argued that a vasectomy for him was going to be alot cheaper for them to pay for than a tubal for me, but they said that DH getting a vasectomy didn't guarantee I wouldn't get pregnant! Took me a while to get that one!

Anyway, we paid cash for his vasectomy, and it was only $500.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

First of all, when questioned, many insurers/companies that don't cover birth control will tell you that they don't due to moral/religious beliefs. IF! they are covering comparable conditions/medications (Viagra, vascectemies...men can be in charge of their reproductive health and women can't?...and before you say it, some of the same companies who don't cover BC also won't cover tubals, but do cover viagra and vascectemies), then they are discriminating against women and those with beliefs other than their own.

Once you receive government money (particularly federal), it comes with strings attached. One of which is an agreement to not discriminate based on gender, race, and religion. Yes, there are laws against discrimination for everyone, they become more stringent when you're a government contractor.

As for pain reduction and BC, the fact that I would be in pain is secondary to the fact that without BC my abdomen would be filled with endometrial debree that could coat all my lower organs (they've even found endometriosis attached to lungs in more severe cases), and I could develop cysts that could be life threatening if they ruptured. The pain and the reduction of it are symptoms, not the actual problem.

I'll also reiterate what I said in a previous post. My objections are philosophical and done in principle. We are fortunate that we are in a position to always be able to afford birth control. Our insurance pays for it to the same level it pays for comparable drugs. If they didn't we would pay completely out of pocket. We're not sponging off anyone. We pay all insurance expenses for us and our one employee. At present, we've elected to have only 50% prescription coverage. If we canceled prescription coverage I of course, wouldn't expect to have the insurance pay for my BC...just as they wouldn't pay for any other drugs.

Again--I am not knocking your need for it..but I don't see how your condition makes your situation more deserving of medicine to control it than other people with conditions that aren't covered either.

FTR it has been awhile, but I think the only meds my insurace doesn't cover are OTC. I did do bc way back when--but was using a free sample and didn't like it so never pursued obtaining it.

And I do understand your frustration as my necessary care--gets second fiddle due to people abusing the system..so limitations are set up for it.

I am not a pharmacist so am not able to debate the merits of why one type of drug is covered and another is not (and this is more than just the bc/viagra debate).

 

[MAKmom]

Since insurance companys need people to cover... would'nt they want more people to be born to cover? OK, I'm just being a pain in the neck now...I'll go away.

 

[kbkids]

Since insurance companys need people to cover... would'nt they want more people to be born to cover? OK, I'm just being a pain in the neck now...I'll go away.