Today's Poll: Should health care plans be required to offer women free birth control?
Overwhelming cry for lower healthcare costs AND a mandate for providers to give away more products and services at their own expense....doesn't compute.
My government should give away birth control on every corner...Think of the logistics
I would think that the cost savings would far outweigh the cost of birth control. Any healthcare plan that I have ever had has always covered birth control because it costs a lot to have a baby!
I agree with Jeff. And to force employers, like the Catholic Church, to offer any particular coverage is wrong.
I am not anti-contraceptive, I think it is an integral part of family planning and has other valuable advantages in treating conditions unrelated to pregnancy prevention. However, it is the mandate part that bothers me. Some plans cover it in full, some cover it with a copay, and some don't cover it at all. Mandating all carriers to give it away at no cost to the consumer naturally will drive up overall healthcare costs. I also agree with John in the lack of respect for the Catholic Church and the valuable services they provide through their health network. Forcing the Catholic Church to abandon one of the tenets of their faith is clear breach of the First Amendments free exercise clause.
Jeff, how doesn’t providing birth control save insurance companies money?
There’s no fire behind the smoke of this wedge issue. Catholics don’t necessarily follow every rule of the church, we are not fundamentalists. I hear that 2% follow the birth control teachings; I just never met one. There is no lack of respect here; woman should have the right to decide their own health matters. Employers should keep their mouth shut and mind their own business.
The issue is not if Catholics use or do not use birth control, or even if providing it saves companies money. They issue is should the Church be forced by the government to provide the coverage it says is against the Church doctrine, or as an alternative, be forced to drop coverage for its employees altogether.
There are exepmtions provided for the church that exempt those whose primary function is religious. Hospitals and universities that are open to the public and accept public money to function should provide the full range of benefits for women with the one exeption being the "Plan B" morning after pill that is administered after the fact to preclude a possible pregnancy. The "Plan B" does present a real conflict of conscience for Catholics because of its function and could be construed as providing an abortion, however if it is an option a women chooses on her own that is her descision alone. The "Plan B" cost and availability is such that not covering it will not create any hardship or long term out of pocket cost for any women who chooses to use it. As to the birth control using contraception is concerned this is a womens health issue not a moral issue. As a practicing Catholic, I resent the all-male hirarchy of the church making broad pronouncements from the pulpit with little or no consideration for the women who make up the majority of practicing Catholics. It would have been nice to hear the same full throated outrage over the abuse of children at the hands of the clergy and its subsequant cover-up.
Wish I could like that again Ed.
Simple answer is NO! Why should birth control be cover by health care plans? Birth control is not about keeping one healthy or prevents illness. People are adults and if, they choose to have intercourse with or without birth control should rely on them. Cost of birth control is not so outrageous that people cannot afford it. It is just waste of health care resources and taxpayer dollars. Birth control is NOT 100% guarantee to stop pregnancies anyway. Birth control for women will not stop sexually transmitted diseases. So, if you are worried about a baby. You should worry about STDs as well.
....and yet there is never a peep about insurance companies covering Viagra and like products.
Well Bea, I did not know Viagra is covered by health care. Did not know Viagra was a birth control.
So the Catholic Church as an employer has the right to cherry-pick insurance coverage for its employees (regardless of whether they might be Catholic) on principle- specific services violate Catholic tenets of morality, even if those services are for hormone regulation unrelated to birth control... Does a corporation, say, General Electric have the right to decide procedures, say, orthopedic surgery is not in keeping with the GE philosophy and will therefor not be covered by GE-provisioned employee policies? Or (to shift things around for the sake of context) what if churches X, Y and Z got together and convinced a significant number of (family-oriented) politicians to re-instate the blue laws- no Sunday (alcohol, among other things) sales?
Not for nothin'- it was really special to have all us guys weigh in on this women's health issue. ...Hope we had our sisters' best interest at heart! Remember, May 13 is approaching; the day we have to let the gals out of the kitchen.
*The first sentence has been edited to abet comprehension.
The Catholic Church is not denying anyone insurance, and they provide it right now. They object to the government saying to have to add a provision to the coverage that violates their religious views, or be forced to stop providing any coverage at all.
CM, I couldn't agree more. Think of the unintended consequences of allowing a business to exclude medical treatments they deam immoral or not in keeping with thier beliefs. All sexually transmitted, smoking and alcohol related insurance will follow.
Are saying that a business like GM should be mandated by the federal government what services it will provide if it offers health coverage?
And are you saying the federal government should be able tell any religious group what coverage it must provide, or not proved any coverage at all?
Should churches, in this case, be treated the same as business? If that is the case, since businesses can not legally discriminate, are you saying the Church can be forced by the federal government to have woman priests?
The contraception issue within the Catholic church is not so much a moral or faith issue as it is a control issue with a male only hiarchy making descisions for women regarding their conduct. The notion that the religious institutions are under siege by the government is nonsense, the Catholic health system takes billions from the government to operate their hospitals and cover the cost of treating and caring for the poor as well as for medicare coverage. No one is telling any church who it can or must ordain as its ministers, what is mandated is a standard of performance of what is to be provided to employees when it comes to health insurance coverage when operating a commercial enterprise that opens its doors to the public and accepts the publics tax monies to do so.
If one can afford pre-intercourse booze and a post-intercourse cigarette, they should be able to afford protection. If not? Quit drinkin and smokin... you're gonna need diapers. Just MY 2 cents.
Of course John. Health care is a basic human right and our government should mandate coverage for all citizens. We should go back to the drawing board and create a single payer government run system.
I understand we're most of you stand but, this fight against birth control is just another far right mistake. Your candidates are driving off the cliff and it's fun to watch.
The question ..................Should health care plans be required to offer women free birth control? I say no....Why should every one that has health insurance be forced to have that on their policy...It only adds to the cost...Many don't need it or want it..This is the problem with the whole Health Care law..If the government feels that its needed for all the poor women in America ,then give it out at the local plan parenthood...Why force the Church to pay for something they don't agree with.....Any why free,why no copay on that drug, but copays on life saving medicines..I thought this was called the affordable heath care act....Affordable for who...My rates have gone up the last three years since it was enacted..
Let's see how much your rates go up when the pregnancy rate goes through the roof. If your worried about your taxes, you better have a clear understanding of what keeping birth control away from "poor" women means a few years down the road.
Mark, your rates have gone up the last three years since it was enacted? And pretty much every year prior to that also.
But i thought the whole point we were told by Obama was that rates would stop going up and that they would come down some..He said it would save billions of dollars....Just as the City and Counties and Schools are all complaining about mandates causing taxes to go up....The federal government mandates on health insurance companies are causing my rates to go up...My rates were not going up this fast 5 years ago...Like i said let the government hand out birth control at plan parenthood for those that can't afford it...Why should it be free with no copay...When life saving drugs like heart pills have a copay on them....Birth control is not needed to keep someone alive..Heart medicine is......Birth Control pills are covered under insurance now for many but with a co pay..And there is still alot of teenage and unwanted pregnancies...They give out free condoms and we still have all these pregnancies...Does Obama have some fact that if we give out birth control pills for free this will stop...........Is this going to stop abortions.....Will all unwanted pregnancies stop...This should not be a mandate all policies must have... Cmon Charlie birth control is covered now on most policy's with co pays..and i dont see that changing any time soon..So i doubt by not forcing the Catholic Universities to include birth control pills will make pregnancy rate go through the roof........Lets be real here...
Charlie, why are pregnancy rates going to go through the roof unless we provide free birth control for all women? Both the CDC and the USA Today are reporting declining pregnancy rates among teens and all women under 25. In fact, teen pregnancy rates are at a 40 year LOW. The CDC reports declining birth rates among teenagers since at least 2007. Where is this pregnancy boom that you warn about? Your concern for "poor" women is unfounded since Medicaid is already mandated to provide free birth control. The facts just do not support your assertions. Logic would conclude that forcing ALL insurance companies to provide birth control for free when there is no current or foreseeable uptrend in pregnancies will naturally result in higher costs. Increased costs by not providing free birth control is a straw man argument.
Hey Charlie, I am still trying to figure out how birth control is even considered a health issue. How does birth control for women or even men effect one's health or protect against illness? Just because, one uses contraception does not protect one's health. It is what it is, a birth control! If, one is worried about getting pregnant then do not have sex until they are ready. (I know life is all about sex and it is human nature. blah blah blah) What it comes down to is why should HMOs be responsible to cover any of the cost of any contraception? Health care is for one’s health not to pay for peoples’ inability to be responsible such as having sex unprotected or protected. One last thing does women’s birth control prevent any illnesses or one’s health?
If, poor women and men are worry about having babies because, they cannot afford having children. Maybe they should consider one or both of the following; women can tie their tubes or remove their ovaries and men can have a vasectomy. It is a onetime operation and in the long run would cost less.
Contraception is directly related to the health of anyone who is sexually active. Unwanted pregnancies are costly, not just in terms of monetary expense but also in terms of the quality of life for everyone involved.
Should health care companies be forced into providing it? I don't believe they should simply because they're a private company. They'd probably be wiser to offer contraception as part of their coverage, though. In the long run, I think it would be very cost effective for them to offer contraception.
Even if the woman is offered condoms, just having them around means she would be more likely to use them. Using condoms does help to greatly reduce STD's. Reducing disease reduces costs.
On a side note, I've never understood why dental care isn't part of a health care plan. Your teeth are the very first part of being healthy. Good oral hygiene has been proven to help reduce the incidences of heart disease and diabetes. If you lose your teeth, you can't masticate your food and you have to resort to chopping everything with a blender and eating soft foods.
More words of wisdom from John Woodworth.....
Should I bother? Yeah, what the hell.
How, pray tell, would a person who is too poor to be able to afford contraceptives in pill form afford hysterectomy or vasectomy surgery?
And for the record John, no doctor in the world, at least the civilized part of the world, would remove a woman's ovaries as a form of birth control.
Did I miss something here, were condoms recently outlawed? Why is the pill the only form of contraception now? Who is too poor to take precautions against getting pregnant? Last time I checked, having sex is optional, not mandatory. Therefore along with the privilege of engaging in a consensual act where two adults have agreed they don't want children as a by-product of the act, the responsibility of precautions belongs to both parties.
Why yes, John. The "birth control" pill is beneficial to women's health, and is about much more than contraception - and your comments highlight exactly why men shouldn't be making health decisions that only affect women.
For one, it regulates the cycle for women that experience irregular, long, heavy, or any combination of, periods. Any of these, coupled with an iron deficiency that is present in a great deal of women, leads to anemia. It also brings down the occurence of ovarian cysts to nearly zero chance, and with that comes the benefit of a considerably lower chance of ovarian and endometrial cancers. Diabetic women should also be careful when planning a pregnancy, as their condition may complicate the pregnancy... this allows them to do that.
But enough of me talking... try asking a woman, or a doctor... or try this instead:
LOL Beth. I'm glad removing a man's testicles is not part of birth control surgery.
Thank you, Tony. A voice of reason in the wilderness.
This is why few women aren't responding to this thread. The men seem to have all the answers. Just ask them.
"men shouldn't be making health decisions that only affect women.."
What? Seriously? You do realize that there are plenty of male doctors who help women make decisions about their health choices, right?
I don't think you meant to say that John speaks for the majority of males around here..lol.
Why isn't life saving medicine such as heart medication offered free with no copay such as the birth control or the abortion morning after pill..
Bea, you have a point, but most insurance providers are very restrictive in how many viagra tablets they will pay for. I believe they will pay for 6 tablets per month. Another point to consider is who is using the Viagra. Younger males of reproductive age would not normally "need" Viagra for erectile dysfunction. Men who are past the age of reproduction are the typical candidates and even with health coverage, Viagra is still not free.
Viagra costs $80 for a three month supply WITH insurance and through a mail order pharmacy. It would cost at least double the price if the prescription were filled locally. (Don't ask me how I know)
Since the current argument about this subject stems from a Catholic Church official's feigned indignation about morality etc..., I'd like to offer this opinion:
Catholic Church officials don't get to be indignant about ANYTHING until they hand over all of their child-f#@$ing clergymen to law enforcement for trial and incarceration.
Sorry Doug - I didn't mean that in such a blanket sense that everyone shares his opinions. And of course doctors can be men... Dr. Edwards and Dr. Jaeger are good men. For clarification purpose, I meant it in the sense that some men see the non-technical name and assume it only serves one purpose... when it doesn't. And men that don't have wives, sisters or mothers - or practice medicine to know - that don't experience some of these problems will never truly understand it's other uses.
Thanks for pointing out the error in my post.
Contraception does not prevent women from receiving diseases or infections. So, the pill will help some women with a couple different issues but, not all. For those few who have that need, fine. What about the morning after pill? Does that have the same results as the pill? Under this health care bill it would be cover and it is nothing more than birth control. I just believe that if one needs to be on the pill for other than purely medical reasons then, it should not rely on HMOs to cover the cost.
"For one, it regulates the cycle for women that experience irregular, long, heavy, or any combination of, periods." I had an ex-girlfriend who suffer from irregular and long periods but, it was not contraceptive pills that regulate her. I will have to contact her and ask what it was but, it was not birth control.
Sorry Chris I thought it was clear that if HMOs are to cover the morning after, pill, etc.. Then the HMOs could be responsible to cover the surgeries.
Why is it that liberals want the government to be totally devoid of any and all religious matters and yet want government to dictate to religions how they run their organizations? They certainly don't complain when religious charities pick up the slack in feeding and clothing people in need. Why is it that liberals continue the mantra of "government stay out of my bedroom" and yet want the government to actively participate in population control against the tenets of some religions?
Tony, I was just busting on you about John. I knew what you meant..it's all good.
I grew up in a house with three women and myself in it. All three of them are also nurses. My mother has been an RN for almost as long as I've been alive. She was also in the Army reserves for about 24 years teaching triage nursing. She was the supervisor at Warsaw hospital on night shift for a couple decades as well. My oldest sister has been an RN for a long time..not sure of how many years. My next oldest sister is an LPN.
My grandmother died of breast cancer and my aunt is a breast cancer survivor. I'm sympathetic to women's health to the nth degree.
Liberals are the bane of today's society. It is all about taking what they can get from society and not giving back to society. Liberal = Socialism. HMOs rates are skyrocketing and here we have people who want to give HMOs another reason to jack up rates. Obama Care has already cause my prescription co-pays with my HMO to increase from $25 to $600. Why? Hmmm, may have something to do with covering the FREE medical care of people. Where is this money coming from? Taxpayers but, how many taxpayers are there? Seems like fewer and fewer every year. People will be bitching when they realize that Obama Health Care will cover illegal immigrants and non-U.S. citizens. If a love one is diagnosed with an terminal illness they will get limited health care because, why pay to prolong someone's life?
Wow, nearly everything in the comment above this one is factually inaccurate. Well done.
Well Chris show me where this is incorrect? Obama Care is based on the European Care. I have also, lived over in Europe for many years and have numerous friends and family still there. Unless you have money and can afford better health care. Doctors will not give you the same care and people who cannot afford such care will be given the bare minimum. Obama Care will cover illegal immigrants. Do you think they turn them away now? No, it is a drain on the American taxpayers. This whole Obama Health Care will be a huge drain on the American taxpayers. Until we can regulate what a doctor, pharmacist and medical supply company can charge for their services, we will never have a true handle on health care. The idea doctors become doctors because, they care about their fellow man is not the same for a lot of today’s doctors. Some it is the prestige and the money. There are some who volunteer their services for those in need but, very few in comparisons.
Oh, if you support Obama Care, why? If it is so great, then why does the government not have to deal with it? Why did State Congressmen/women make deals with Obama to help protect their state?
I can care less about how the Catholic Churches feel about this. They are hypocrites anyway. Tony states the following;
“For one, it regulates the cycle for women that experience irregular, long, heavy, or any combination of, periods. Any of these, coupled with an iron deficiency that is present in a great deal of women, leads to anemia. It also brings down the occurrence of ovarian cysts to nearly zero chance, and with that comes the benefit of a considerably lower chance of ovarian and endometrial cancers. Diabetic women should also be careful when planning a pregnancy, as their condition may complicate the pregnancy... this allows them to do that.”
How many women really suffer from these? I know a lot of women and very few take the pill. So, if these issues are so dramatic with women, where are they? The numbers are fewer than what you make them sound to be.
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, birth control pills are used by more than 11 million people all over the world. (World Population? What is it now almost 6 billion?)
According to the medical journal Human Reproduction Update, the benefits of preventing unwanted pregnancy apply not only to families, but to populations as well. People are now able to choose when they get pregnant and when not to, which helps to control the population and prevent excessive resource demands.
Tony its true on what you stated above but, the numbers are very few.
Oh, for those of you that think I do not care about women’s health you are way off base. I worry about my daughter, my mother, my cousin (blood clots developing in brain), a couple friends (one with breast cancer (which she is losing a breast) and one with unknown illness (aka Doctor’s Guessing Game), my co-worker (she is having a difficult time and may have cancer) and my fiancée. So, you can piss off on that noise.
Your numbers are not only wrong... they're less than the total number of women in the United States alone that take "the pill" - let alone the world. They also completely omit IUDs, injections, patches, the ring, implants.
And yes, nearly everything you've written throughout this is factually incorrect. Chris is quite right.