I take birth control because I have crazy mood swings during my period that anti-depressants can not control. Also I love it because I have clear skin at all times, I never break out-ever ever. Even when I sleep in my makeup. And its made my hair thicker, stronger and darker.

All non-sexual reasons I take birth control.

And alot of women out here have poly ovarian cyst syndrome.

Plus birth control pills do not prevent STDs, only condoms do.

I can't fathom anyone who has ever claimed to have any libertarian leanings whatsoever, being okay with the government telling private groups what they must and must not pay for. We need LESS of the government doing that, not more.

I use Retin-A. Should the government force my insurer-and by extention everyone else who uses them-to pay for it? After all, it can have medical uses. You pay for my prevention now or my facelift later, right?

Another thing that hasn't helped is that the whole system is now built or has evolved to have insurance pay for everything.

The cost of drugs has risen, and older effective medicines have been retired, because people are like "The insurance can pay the $300 per month for this drug," where a health consumer paying out of pocket would ask "Is there something cheaper that works?"

How much do older BC pills cost per month? How much do the new low dose one's cost? That is an honest question.

But should insurance be paying for pre-existing conditions?

Non-issue as most acknowledge and many ignore.

If preventive care is optimal then obviously condoms should be "free" to both male/female to prevent AIDS and STDs.

If Viagra is to be mandated due to psychological issues then obviously cosmetic surgery for everyone (including those that desire sex change) must be "free".

Since "we" the public can not make these determinations in a rational manner the government "must" do it for us.

THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE QUESTIONING.

Nice of MSM to keep pushing side issues so the real question does not get much discussion. Just keep pushing those emotional topics. It's good for the ratings.

Pirates know that jumping up and down and yelling keeps the prey occupied while their brothers sneak around to the other side of the boat for access.

I take birth control for both sex related and non-sex related health issues. I like that I have health coverage that helps cover this expense. I don't like the idea of my employers being able to tell me that they don't like my lifestyle and therefore want to be able to influence my health insurance coverage needs.

However, I don't think it makes any sense at all that health insurance is all tied up with employment anymore. It just doesn't make sense in this day and age. We want workers who are able to seek out employment that they will be good at without having to calculate the implications of available health care coverage in that equation. I think our economy would be stronger if we had employees who were making employment decisions based more on job descriptions than on pre-existing health conditions.

I don't know enough to offer another suggestion but there has to be a better way.

I don't like the idea of my employers being able to tell me that they don't like my lifestyle and therefore want to be able to influence my health insurance coverage needs.

Wait till it's the government doing that. You've let the camel get its nose in your tent, don't cry too much when the rest of it gets in and squeezes you out.

In the interests of cutting costs, the government may one day tell you:

what to eat
how much to eat
when to eat
mandate you exercise
mandate birth control implants

The last one, in addition to limiting child birth, also limits the number of people needing welfare and other government aid.

Don't say it can't happen. It can. It will. Someone from the TSA school of managment will decide that it makes bottom line sense, and it's related to health care.

Additionally, a question. How many of y'all are paying $3,000/year on birth control?

perhaps this is a good a place as any to point out the difference between health insurance and health CARE.

If you want bigger knockers, or a smaller nose, these are both requiring health care... but they don't fall under insurance UNLESS something is BROKEN. Say you have to have mastectomy due to cancer... you should be able to get reconstructive surgery as part of that. Or say you break your nose in a car accident. Insurance is for things that are broken, or to make sure they WON'T be broken.

So if you have a problem that is fixed by taking the pill, then it's a drug to fix something, just like and antibiotic is taken if you have pneumonia.

But if you want to take the pill so you can have sex with your boyfriend whenever the mood strikes? More power to you, BUT like a boob or nose job? You're buying.

It is ELECTIVE, NOT a medical necessity.

Importantly it should be treated just like a condom, because that is what it is, a preventive. Nobody has ever offered to buy me condoms, because they are my responsibility. Amazingly enough they are also dirt cheap because you only use as needed, AND they are the only protection against disease if you and your partner haven't been fully tested for disease...

So win/win.

When you look at it that way, religion doesn't enter into it at all, and why should it? It's a personal issue.

"AK is absolutely right and the solution is untying it from employment and having people purchase it like I do, as an individual (I have Kaiser HMO, and have since my 20s)."

Amy is right. Those of us who are self-employed get totally left out. We have to find ways to pay for our own care. I paid the maternity/delivery costs for both my children because the major health plan we purchased was just for emergencies or catastrophic illness.

We set aside the money, and paid for our children's births, just as we pay for their school lunches, clothes, and all other expenses. I've also always bought my own birth control, retin A, and most medications.

My liberal gf shot back that this was just because I'm lucky enough to be able to afford these things, but if somebody can't afford these expenses (unless the costs are inflated because the whole system is corrupt), then they shouldn't have kids.

The costs for us in the early 90s was about $8000 per child. That covered the doctor, prenatal care, and delivery. I think the bill would've been much higher if we'd had insurance, which shows how messed up things are.

"Additionally, a question. How many of y'all are paying $3,000/year on birth control?" IRA Darth

OI! when that ended up being talked about I almost fell over. I haven't spent that much in 47 YEARS... because I only by trojans when I need them, and NOBODY is suggesting that they be given to me for free.

I spent $30 a month on my BC in college, no prescription coverage so I was paying the full price. That's $360 a year.

I think I'm going to start selling sugar pills packaged in little round calendar-packs, if there are people willing to shell our $3k a year!

The short answer to the question asked: If I'm a Jehovah's Witness and I want to buy coverage that doesn't cover medical intervention, I should be able to buy that policy. Why should I be forced to buy coverage that I'll never use? (If children are involved, that's a different matter... I think I'll leave off of that for the moment.)

However, the problem comes in when I have a heart attack, and simultaneously experience a sudden religious conversion. I go to the hospital and expect that I'll be taken care of, despite having no means to pay for it. After all, it would be inhumane to just let me die! The one little grain of reasoning behind mandatory coverage is this: to make it impossible to be a freeloader.

Unfortunately, Massachusetts did the rest of us the favor of experimenting with that, and it doesn't appear to have worked. Lots of people found ways to freeload in spite of the mandate, and costs to the people who actually pay for their medical care went up, not down.

(unless the costs are inflated because the whole system is corrupt)...

That right there is the problem - costs ARE inflated because the whole system IS corrupt! That's why we're having this discussion, and that's why everyone is up in arms over it. The government tries to control costs, too many people are invested in trying to get around government control, and that drives the prices up. Didn't anyone read about that Medicare scam that was happening on the East coast, with all these Russian immigrants, older ones, being placed on Medicare and the doctors inflating the level of cares and costs that they submitted for reimbursement?? This shit's been going on for YEARS, and not just with this one group of people either.

An overlooked reason why insurance coverage for ordinary, expected costs like contraceptives drives up total costs more than you would expect. When you pay up front and can order anything, you order everything.

07/26/11 - HealthBlog - Free mandates raise insurance premiums
== ==
[edited]  The Institute of Medicine report on women’s health coverage advocates free birth control. But, this isn’t really free. It will raise premium costs.

Chris Jacobs: "The Congressional Budget Office in November 2009 analyzed expected premium increases under Obamacare. CBO noted that Obamacare's richer benefit packages would raise insurance premiums by 27% to 30%, with two-thirds due to lowering copayments and deductibles."

According to the CBO, lower deductibles and copayments alone will add 10% to health insurance premiums under ObamaCare
== ==

Consider this situation. Fred tries a new restaurant. The waiter seats him at a group table for 10; this is an adventure. He isn't very hungry; a ceaser salad for $5 will do. The waiter asks "Will that really be all, Sir?" "Yes, just the salad."

The other nine people at the table all order lobster for $25! The person next to him explains that this is a Lunch Club which encourages community and good feeling. The costs for everyone are added together, and the bill is divided equally among the people at the table.

Fred quickly calls back the waiter and orders lobster.

Shared payment is the problem. Fred faces an average cost he can't control. Say he can get a salad for $5 or a lobster for $25. The change in his personal cost is just $2 [ ($25-$5)/10 ]. He would rather have the lobster for $2 more. This does not depend on the restaurant charging "fee for service" or any lack of choice by the customers.

If he can, he will avoid the restaurant unless he loves lobster. He pays just $2 more for the lobster, but of course pays $25 overall.

Everything would work well if each customer is billed separately. But, our health care reformers insist that we all pay the average costs together. They want to force us into lunch clubs just like that one, and have already gone far in doing this.

The real cost if you go to the hospital/doctor and say your insurance won't cover having a baby, let's say, magically comes down. I know a lady who has breast cancer and no insurance. They told her at the hospital that the screening she needed was $4,000+. She told them she had no insurance and couldn't afford that much, so they dropped the cost down to $1000. Basically, the hospitals are always trying to bilk the insurance companies to cover all the people who don't pay.

Why can't we simply have a health fund, like an insurance policy, that covers everyone for major or accidents/illnesses, hospital stays, and regular check-ups/preventive care? Everyone, over a certain income, would pay into it, and then there could be elective coverages for those who want them and can afford to pay for them. Abusing this system would be much harder since few are going to TRY to get a major illness or have an accident.

But the employers need to be taken out of the equation altogether because most mom-and-pop, small businesses just don't EMPLOY anyone because of this. We pay our workers as "independent contractors", which leaves them uninsured, and those workers probably make up the bulk of the uninsured.

I'm right with you on insurance being untied from employers. Anyone have any idea how this can happen? Is there any politician out there who is pushing this idea?

"Anyone have any idea how this can happen?"

Easy. Restrict employers from deducting expenses related to providing access to health insurance and allow all individuals an above-the-line deduction for premiums paid on a plan obtained via the individual markets.

When I was on birth control, I was paying about $70 a month. That's a pretty hefty monthly fee. Still, not as steep as having a child, for me or for my insurer. If I were running an insurance company, I would give a price break to anyone taking the pill. It makes no financial sense to not cover the bill for birth control and then spring for the costs of pregnancy, delivery and the health care of another whole person.

People are getting upset about all the wrong things. When I was on birth control, that was pretty much the only reason I ever went to a doctor. I'm certain I was paying more in premiums than I used in health care, even with the price break on my pills. Young women in their childbearing years aren't the ones taking the system to the brink.

Being part of a large society means we end up paying for lots of things we don't agree with and don't use. If I'm a pacifist, should I be able to opt out of the portion of my taxes that go to the military? Even if I'm ready and willing to be killed by an invading force? Why should I have to pay for tanks and soldiers I don't want?

Condoms aren't the best thing to compare to this. They are available over the counter without a doctor's approval. Unless you have a latex allergy, there are no health concerns with taking them. You take them as needed, whereas with birth control, you have to take them every day. However, in my fantasy insurance company, I would also cover condoms. Buying condoms is cheaper than treating AIDS.

Basically, the hospitals are always trying to bilk the insurance companies to cover all the people who don't pay. -- LS at March 4, 2012 12:34 PM

No, the standard rate will be $4000, the negotiated rate with the standard insurance companies in the area will be $750, the out of channel insurance companies will be $1250 and the charity cause is $1000. The person working for a living and is "middle class" will have to pay the $4000.

This is just like the rate on the back of a hotel door will be $400. But when hotel list that rate on the franchised web site it will be $125 with a newspaper and continental breakfast. The AARP/AAA rate will be $115, the person walking in at the last minute with empty rooms will pay $110. The person walking in and they are almost full up because of a big event in the area will pay the $400.

Preventative care doesn't actually lower overall costs, it raises them. Better for each individual, of course, but more expensive overall. The "preventative care saves money" lie is well used, but a lie.

Preventative care doesn't actually lower overall costs, it raises them.

Not as far as birth control. Preventing babies is cheaper than providing care for pregnant women and new people until they reach adulthood -- and beyond.

The whole birth control furor has the feel of a giant dodge. Like, if enough aging Boomers can convince us that small outlays for things like birth control pills are the problem, we won't notice that people in the last few years of their lives are the ones creating the biggest burden.

I get the argument that providing free or cheap birth control saves society the burden of more mouths to feed.

Yet, what bothers me is that this is the way we must approach it - that we must assume that people are just too plain irresponsible to handle their basic reproductive health. There's something beneficial in planning and budgeting for these things as an individual - that's what MAKES us responsible. I believe that it certainly helped me to become a more mature, financially prudent person having to budget for things like birth control starting when I was a young woman.

So, how are we supposed to develop a more responsible society? Increasingly allowing young people (and old people) to opt out of almost any responsible planning isn't taking us down that road. It just makes things worse...which is then used as the very argument why we need to give more and more things free because we can't possibly expect the populace, such as it is (such as we've created) to provide for themselves. It's a depressing downward spiral.

This is philosophically and politically important because, does the government have a mandate to tell insurance companies what to give? That proposition strikes me as rather odd.

"Condoms aren't the best thing to compare to this. They are available over the counter without a doctor's approval. Unless you have a latex allergy, there are no health concerns with taking them. You take them as needed, whereas with birth control, you have to take them every day." MonicaP

OK, MP, you've contotallyfused me. Condoms are dirt cheap, need no doctor and don't have health concerns using them, use them only when needed, AND they are the only thing that guards against disease...

and yet, somehow "Birth Control" which is NOT those things is preferable? Why are condoms NOT "Birth Control"?

If I am sussing this out, you seem to mean The Pill, because you need to take everyday, and you need to see a doc to get the prescription.

How is that IN ANY WAY preferable to the condom, and why should anybody but you have to cover the cost of such a luxury good? [Assuming they are not taken for a pure medical reason like Purplepen].

When people have sex they are both participants, and as such have certain choices about BC. The choice is to use a condom, or not have sex. for one thing, it's the only way for a guy to be sure, because there are any number of ways that this pill thing can fail, and there is no physical way to tell, until it's far too late. For another, the woman is entirely the gate keeper on this, and so she can demand he use one, if he doesn't then similarly the act doesn't happen.

Meanwhile all these extra hormones aren't excreted into the water where they wreck plenty of environmental damage, you don't pay a lot of extra money for something you don't use that much, and no institution is forced to do something for you, that you cannot do yourself.

How many women who want to use the pill are actually in committed monogamous long term relationships? If they aren't, they should be using the condom to protect against disease ANYWAY. That means that taking the pill is entirely unnecessary for them. Besides the Diseases that are rapidly becoming antibiotic resistant as is, so protecting against that is powerfully more important than ever.

I would submit that it is you who is worrying about the wrong thing.

If preventing children is what this is about, there is a way to do that, that is cheap, available everywhere, without ever seeing a doctor, doesn't have side effects. You could buy it a few minutes from now, if you wanted to.

Explain to me why an expensive drug with side effects is superior to that?

How is that IN ANY WAY preferable to the condom

The Pill has a higher rate of effectiveness at preventing pregnancy than condoms. It also is better for spontaneity, and has beneficial health effects for some people (and lowers the risk of ovarian cancer for users in general). Plus, no perceived interference with sexual satisfaction. Obviously, condoms are effective at preventing sexually transmitted diseases and the Pill is not, but condoms aren't perfect, either. You've never known anyone who had to deal with a broken condom?

I don't understand why the pill has gotten more expensive. It's been around since, what, the 60s? In my 20s, I think I was paying $25 a month or so. I was on it 4 yrs ago (before hubby had the vasectomy), and I was paying more around $50 per month. Still not $3000 per year, but it's not like this is a new medicine.

Let's give the manufacturer some tax benefits and lower the costs. Then, it would be affordable to those who want it, and employers wouldn't have anything to do with it.

My 18 yr old daughter gets her pills free from our "free clinic". I don't know if that's just because she's underage, or just in my state, but my impression is that there are still ways for women to get the pill for free or very cheaply.

And I think that is a wise investment for taxpayers. I personally don't mind my tax dollars going towards making the pill cheaper and easier to obtain. I'm merely against it being mandated to employers or insurance companies to do so. These are private entities.

If an employer does have a religious belief in not seeking medical intervention therefore he does not offer any health insurance for the employees he hires, potential employees who object to that are free to seek work elsewhere. Potential employees who choose to pay for their own insurance and like everything else about the job can work there without a problem. If the employer is unable to find any employees because of his policy, that's his problem. Change his policy or go out of business. Either way, it should be his choice.

I don't understand why the pill has gotten more expensive.

It isn't. You can get a 28 day supply[*] for $9 from Target. I'd also mention Walmart, but I don't want to cause Ms. Fluke to get a case of vapors.

[*] to be sure, it's a generic equivalent, but still $108/year+tax is less than the updated information of $1,000/year ($3,000 over 3 years)

I'll also note that Georgetown Law runs about $50,000 per year (or $150,000 over 3 years)...

so Marion, I'm going to show my work here, even cribbed from Wiki since their table is so nice... The pill has a real world failure rate of ~8%, while condoms are ~15%...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

but you can tell right there if a condom fails. Then you can go get plan B.[in 30+ years never a failure, but then I'm boring old Mr. Normal]

You don't figure out if The pill has failed UNTIL you are preggers, and have to decide if you want to abort, and ALL THE ANGST THAT GOES WITH IT.

That is the difference between tricking your body into thinking it's preggers, and in having a physical barrier method. You can SEE when it fails.

Also the downside to the Pill is not to be discounted since it includes: blood clots, stroke, and heart attacks.

that's not to say that I am agin the pill generally, just that a lot of the figures people trot out about it to bolster their case for forcing it to be paid by others, just don't hold up.

IF efficacy is the most important thing, than the IUD is by far the best method with a real world failure rate of .8% WITHOUT hormones. This is starting to get down into the full sterilization rates, without the overall side effects. And good for up to 12 years.

On that one you can ask Amy...

Yep... My Tri-Sprintec is $9 or $10 a month at Target. That's lower than my co-pay for my insurance. When I was on Ortho Tri Cyclen Low a few years ago, it was $90 a month at CVS without insurance. So, the pill can get pricey, but not all of them are. And, it's still cheaper than a baby. Plus, it makes my boobs a little bigger.

"When I was on birth control, I was paying about $70 a month. That's a pretty hefty monthly fee. Still, not as steep as having a child, for me or for my insurer. If I were running an insurance company, I would give a price break to anyone taking the pill. "

I can almost guarantee you that some insurance company somewhere has already tried this, and they have the data to show that it doesn't work. Because if it did work, the insurers would be doing it already.

The problem is, it's yet another demand for another damn entitlement. Once it becomes an entitlement, it probably will cost $3000 per year per person, once all the paperwork goes through all the government wickets.

"If I'm a pacifist, should I be able to opt out of the portion of my taxes that go to the military? "

No, because defense is a Constitutionally mandated function of government. That's like saying, "If I'm a criminal, shouldn't I be able to opt out of paying taxes for law enforcement?"

The irony of all this is that Catholic Bishops lobbied for Obamacare.

* * *

One thing about this controversy is that it's shown how ignorant people are in general about birth control, especially men, but, to my surprise, many women as well. I've run across many comments by otherwise intelligent people where they either state or suggest that there is no difference between various forms of the Birth Control pill (IUDs would apply if the issue came up.) There are huge differences between various brands and women react quite differently to each of these.

Some women react quite differently between Sprintec and Tri-Sprintec (the $9 pill) or to both.