PDA

View Full Version : Who pays for "free" birth control?



pooltchr
11-01-2010, 10:52 AM
Is this another"free gift that the taxpayers will be paying for under Obamacare?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101031/ap_on_he_me/us_birth_control

WASHINGTON Fifty years after the pill, another birth control revolution may be on the horizon: <span style="color: #FF0000">free</span> contraception for women in the U.S., thanks to the new health care law.

That could start a shift toward more reliable and <span style="color: #FF0000">expensive</span> forms of birth control that are gaining acceptance in other developed countries.

But first, look for a fight over social mores.

A panel of experts advising the government meets in November to begin considering what kind of preventive care for women should be <span style="color: #FF0000">covered at no cost </span>to the patient, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>as required under President Barack Obama's overhaul.</span>Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., author of the women's health amendment, says the clear intent was to include family planning.

But is birth control preventive medicine?

Conflicting answers frame what could be the next clash over moral values and a health law that passed only after a difficult compromise restricting the use of public money for abortions.

For many medical and public health experts, there's no debate.

"There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that family planning saves lives and improves health," said obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. David Grimes, an international family planning expert who teaches medicine at the University of North Carolina. "Contraception rivals immunization in dollars saved for every dollar invested. Spacing out children allows for optimal pregnancies and optimal child rearing. Contraception is a prototype of preventive medicine."

But U.S. Catholic bishops say pregnancy is a healthy condition, not an illness. In comments filed with the Department of Health and Human Services, the bishops say they oppose any requirement to cover contraceptives or sterilization as preventive care.

"We don't consider it to be health care, but a lifestyle choice," said John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, a Philadelphia think tank whose work reflects church teachings. "We think there are other ways to avoid having children than by ingesting chemicals paid for by health insurance."


So far, most other religious conservatives have stayed out of the debate, though that could change. Some say they are concerned about any requirement that might include the morning-after pill. The Food and Drug Administration classifies it as birth control; some religious conservatives see it as an abortion drug.

Jeanne Monahan, a health policy expert at the conservative Family Research Council, said her group would oppose any mandate that lacks a conscience exemption for moral and religious reasons. She said there's "great suspicion" that a major abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, is leading the push for <span style="color: #FF0000">free</span> birth control.

As recently as the 1990s, many health insurance plans didn't even cover birth control. Protests, court cases, and new state laws led to dramatic changes. Today, almost all plans now cover prescription contraceptives. So does <span style="color: #FF0000">Medicaid</span>, the health care program for low-income people.

The use of birth control is "virtually universal" in the U.S., according to a government report this summer from the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly 93 million prescriptions for contraceptives were dispensed in 2009, according to IMS Health, a market analysis firm. Generic versions of the pill are available at Walmart stores, for example, for $9 a month.

Still, about half of all pregnancies are unplanned, and many occur among women using some form of contraception. The government says the problem is rarely the birth control method, but "inconsistent or incorrect use," such as forgetting to take a pill.

Advocates say <span style="color: #FF0000">free</span> birth control would begin to address the problem.

"We can look at other countries where birth control is available for <span style="color: #FF0000">no cost</span>, and what we see are lower pregnancy rates, lower abortion rates and lower teen pregnancy," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.

It would <span style="color: #FF0000">remove a cost barrier </span>that may be keeping women away from more reliable long-acting birth control, and also affects those who don't do well on inexpensive generics.

A major research study now taking place in St. Louis provides a glimpse of how things might change.

The Contraceptive CHOICE Project is providing <span style="color: #FF0000">free birth control </span>to as many as 10,000 women, tracking their decisions and the results. About 70 percent have chosen long-acting contraceptives such as IUDs (intrauterine devices) or implants, which are reversible and have a much lower failure rate than pills or condoms. The proportion of U.S. women using such methods remains low; part of the reason seems to be higher upfront cost.

"The shift we need to see in the United States is a shift away from methods like the pill and condoms to the most effective methods, like implants and IUDs," said Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, a principal investigator on the study. "And we'll only see that shift if somebody is willing to pay for it."

How the Obama administration will apply the law remains to be seen. It could allow insurance plans wide discretion on meeting the coverage requirement. A panel convened by the Institute of Medicine will hold its first meeting Nov. 16 to begin work on recommendations to HHS. The department has until next August to make its decision.




Personally, I don't have any issues with the use of birth control...in fact, I think it's a good thing. My issue is how they are selling this idea as being "FREE". Nothing the government is involved in is ever free. Somebody has to pay the bill for anything "free".

So my question is, should every taxpayer in the country be forced to provide birth control to those who can't or won't pay for it themselves?

Steve

Qtec
11-02-2010, 02:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So my question is, should every taxpayer in the country be forced to provide birth control to those who can't or won't pay for it themselves?

Steve </div></div>

Yes. Its in their own interests.


Q

pooltchr
11-02-2010, 06:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So my question is, should every taxpayer in the country be forced to provide birth control to those who can't or won't pay for it themselves?

Steve </div></div>

Yes. Its in their own interests.


Q </div></div>

Actually it's not in my own interest. It's in someone else's interest. I've managed to make it through 58 years without assisting in creating any unwanted pregnancy, with no help from the taxpayers.
What is in my interest is for people to acccept personal responsibility for their own actions.

Steve

Deeman3
11-02-2010, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So my question is, should every taxpayer in the country be forced to provide birth control to those who can't or won't pay for it themselves?

Steve </div></div>

Yes. Its in their own interests.


Q </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> We agree here. The costs will be offset by the costs of supporting all these kids for the rest of their natural lives, IMO.

If we do this, who will fill the jails, gangs and Democratic voting ranks in the future? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Mexicans who will never use birth control. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span>

Sev
11-02-2010, 08:14 AM
Free stylization would be a better option.

sack316
11-02-2010, 12:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So my question is, should every taxpayer in the country be forced to provide birth control to those who can't or won't pay for it themselves?

Steve </div></div>

Yes. Its in their own interests.


Q </div></div>

Actually I agree with Q here. It's not that I want to pay for someone's birth control... but I'd prefer to pay for that over paying the extra costs involved in the alternative (like such instances Deeman described).

We'd be paying something one way or another under the current system... may as well be the cheaper alternative.

Sack

pooltchr
11-02-2010, 12:45 PM
I agree it's a tough decision...but I have to choose principle over practicality. Too many times, I've seen the "baby step" process come to life in Washington. Once it starts, it seems impossible to stop.

Steve

sack316
11-02-2010, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree it's a tough decision...but I have to choose principle over practicality. Too many times, I've seen the "baby step" process come to life in Washington. Once it starts, it seems impossible to stop.

Steve </div></div>

True enough, but we already do pay for a lot of these families... so not much else to step to in this instance, IMHO

Sack

pooltchr
11-02-2010, 01:01 PM
Sure there is.
First it's the pill or IUD.
Then it's free pre natal care when they forget to use it.
Then it's free abortions when they don't want the kid.
Then we will pay them not to have kids.

When it comes to Washington, nothing is too crazy to be off limits.

Steve

wolfdancer
11-02-2010, 01:04 PM
wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run if we could get them southern boys to have them vas deferens snipped?....and to leave their first cousins alone?

sack316
11-02-2010, 01:16 PM
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the collective "we" does already provide pre natal care.

But yeah, definitely do see your point also.

One other thing on this, is we don't need it. Free birth control is already available for those who choose to seek it. A friend of mine worked for... eh I forget which department. At any rate, she had an ex of mine hooked up with a year free BC and 2 OBGYN appointments per year. And she had a middle class income level. I forget what program it was, and am honestly not sure who it is funded by... may or may not be government. But point is, it is available with pretty lenient requirements to qualify.

Sack

Deeman3
11-02-2010, 02:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run if we could get them southern boys to have them vas deferens snipped?....and to leave their first cousins alone?


</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">I don't think it is an issue here as a box of Pampers a month is considered good child support anywhere near Montgomery. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Of course, you may have us mixed up with West Virginia! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>