... the other Black experience
The Health Care debate. Weigh in. Should Contraceptive services be covered and why?
I'd like to hear what people on AP think about the issue of covering contraceptives under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rule that required church-affiliated universities, hospitals and nonprofits to include birth control without co-pays or premiums in their insurance plans. What's your position and why? Do you understand the debate? Do you think men have a right to take part in this decision?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Felicia on -
This is actually a pretty good debate. And it's one of the few that I see all sides of the argument. But here are my thoughts:
1. I do believe birth control should be covered as a part of the new health act. It is a medication provided for preventitive care as well as maintaning hormonal balance. No I don't believe that pregnancy is a diease or an ailment but if you're sexually active and not ready to have a child this is probably your best route ALONG WITH condoms.
2. As far as church affiliated support goes, it really depends. I know that most religious groups advocate the abstinence til marrige angle but nowadays it's just more realistic to teach all the gory goodness of sex education, but I digress.
3. I also have a few points to bring up as for as men's role in regards to costs and participation. I do believe that men do have a say in this, but to a certain point. As mentioned before, erectile dysfunction medication is covered under most insurance plans under the current healthcare structure. So why not birth control in the new healthcare structure? Look at it this way: If more men are taking ED meds, that leads to steady fucking and steady fucking leads to steady babies (provided no condoms were used in this jacked up equation of mine)
On a pro-feminism note of this contention, men should not even try to piss and moan about having to pay tax dollars so that women can have birth control. If some men have the audacity to whine about not wanting to put on a condom because " I doesn't feel the same, baby" then they should man up and pay a premium or two. Remember in the long run this will all be way less expensive than, aboortions, doctor's visits, diapers, formula, braces, child support, court costs and college education. If you're not one of these guys, congratulations you're not an asshole.
On another side of this that may soften the blow. If birth control should happen to be covered with no co-pay think of how many tax dollars we all could potentially save. We currently pay out the ass in tax dollars to support people on welfare. A program that known for supporting families with young mothers who have no knowledge and/or little to no acess to birth control options.
eh. just my thoughts
-
Permalink Reply by kifaru on -
I feel you Felicia. I think that a lot of people are conflating different issues in this discussion. As far as erectile dysfunction pills are concerned I don't see how that example applies because it is usually older men beyond child bearing age that suffer from this disorder. Likewise pregnancy is not a disorder. It's a normal part of many women's lives.The men using ed medicine have are definitely not the ones fathering the children being taken care of by the system.
The other thing is the government is not saying that it will provide everybody with free contraception. The act mandates that insurance companies that already serve people offer health contraceptive services for women at no additional cost. Basically that is like walking into a McDonald's and telling them "You guys must sell fillet mingon burgers for no more than you sell your other burgers." From a business standpoint that is problematic because the government is forcing the businesses to absorb the cost of a product that the business has probably already decided not working in their cost structure.
I think that what people don't realize is that all the companies that offer healthcare to their employees may be asked to adsorb this cost because the insurance companies will be forced to recoup the cost from them. This potentially could lead to companies making the decision to drop health care coverage to it's employees because in our current system most people who have health care coverage have it through private policies subsidized by their employers.
-
Permalink Reply by Felicia on
-
I can understand that. But I would think most companies would probably want to have BC included with no co-pay in their health plans. I say that because of the costs of short term disability for maternity leave. I used to work for a company that would shit bricks if more than 4 women were on maternity leave. Not only because of the the damage it does to productivity but the fact that they had to pay for full salaries for 3 months for people who weren't even there.
On the other side of it BC really isn't that expensive. I recently had to get BC when i wasn't insured by my employer just yet and it on cost me a whopping $22 dollars. The cost to see the damn doctor in order to get the prescription fucking sucked but the medication purchase was reasonable. I don't know. It seems like this whole healthcare reform is a bunch of bullshit anyway....
kifaru said:I feel you Felicia. I think that a lot of people are conflating different issues in this discussion. As far as erectile dysfunction pills are concerned I don't see how that example applies because it is usually older men beyond child bearing age that suffer from this disorder. Likewise pregnancy is not a disorder. It's a normal part of many women's lives.The men using ed medicine have are definitely not the ones fathering the children being taken care of by the system.
The other thing is the government is not saying that it will provide everybody with free contraception. The act mandates that insurance companies that already serve people offer health contraceptive services for women at no additional cost. Basically that is like walking into a McDonald's and telling them "You guys must sell fillet mingon burgers for no more than you sell your other burgers." From a business standpoint that is problematic because the government is forcing the businesses to absorb the cost of a product that the business has probably already decided not working in their cost structure.
I think that what people don't realize is that all the companies that offer healthcare to their employees may be asked to adsorb this cost because the insurance companies will be forced to recoup the cost from them. This potentially could lead to companies making the decision to drop health care coverage to it's employees because in our current system most people who have health care coverage have it through private policies subsidized by their employers.
-
Permalink Reply by kifaru on
-
These two points are what I wish people would focus on. In a modern society why would we have a country where anybody who is working has to go without insurance. If all working people were able to get some affordable insurance we would all benefit. Contraceptive care would not be an issue. The problem is systemic in how we provide healthcare in this country. There is an issue with how we train doctors and and issue with how we pay doctors and an issue with how we get people to pay. These are systemic issues that need to be dealt with.
Felicia said:......I recently had to get BC when i wasn't insured by my employer just yet and it on cost me a whopping $22 dollars. The cost to see the damn doctor in order to get the prescription fucking suckedbut the medication purchase was reasonable. I don't know. It seems like this whole healthcare reform is a bunch of bullshit anyway....
kifaru said:I feel you Felicia. I think that a lot of people are conflating different issues in this discussion. As far as erectile dysfunction pills are concerned I don't see how that example applies because it is usually older men beyond child bearing age that suffer from this disorder. Likewise pregnancy is not a disorder. It's a normal part of many women's lives.The men using ed medicine have are definitely not the ones fathering the children being taken care of by the system.
The other thing is the government is not saying that it will provide everybody with free contraception. The act mandates that insurance companies that already serve people offer health contraceptive services for women at no additional cost. Basically that is like walking into a McDonald's and telling them "You guys must sell fillet mingon burgers for no more than you sell your other burgers." From a business standpoint that is problematic because the government is forcing the businesses to absorb the cost of a product that the business has probably already decided not working in their cost structure.
I think that what people don't realize is that all the companies that offer healthcare to their employees may be asked to adsorb this cost because the insurance companies will be forced to recoup the cost from them. This potentially could lead to companies making the decision to drop health care coverage to it's employees because in our current system most people who have health care coverage have it through private policies subsidized by their employers.
-
Permalink Reply by Arissa Nirvana on -
because its cheaper to give someone a pill then to get an abortion or raise them for 18 years ..especially if you don't want it or are unprepared to care for another life.
-
Permalink Reply by kifaru on
-
In your example why can't the person pay for the pill themseles or go to planned parenthood and get the pills for a reduced price. Why do you assume the government would pay for the kid for 18 yrs? Why isn't the parent taking care of the child? Let's say a person is not prepared to take care of a child. Why do they not require their partner to wear a condom? Why didn't they go out and buy themselves a $7 bottle of contraceptive foam. That kind of person who does not display any forethought is not going to take the pills even if you gave it to them for free. Subsidized or free contraception is not going to solve the financial problems of a child born to a parent financially incapable of buying contraception. That's only going to be fixed if the woman is impregnated by a man who is gainfully employed and is committed to the relationship.
Arissa Nirvana said:because its cheaper to give someone a pill then to get an abortion or raise them for 18 years ..especially if you don't want it or are unprepared to care for another life.
-
Permalink Reply by Arissa Nirvana on
-
if the person can't afford a simple pill then im sure they can't afford a kid. and i know nothing about contraception or etc because i'm a virgin. but if i was it wouldn't be my problem because I CAN afford BC. But i assume its up for debate because alot of women can not. therefore i think it should be covered. besides BC has other uses besides controlling birth , like ovarian cysts, or women with severe menstrual pains. and if the government or insurance or whoever can pay for VIAGRA which has only one purpose of getting some old man's dick up, then BC should be covered.
-
Permalink Reply by PolarVibez on -
THIS is exactly what I was alluding to..
Arissa Nirvana said:BC has other uses besides controlling birth , like ovarian cysts, or women with severe menstrual pains. and if the government or insurance or whoever can pay for VIAGRA which has only one purpose of getting some old man's dick up, then BC should be covered.
When I said THIS way back when...
Under this program wouldn't we be covered for prostate exams or medicines specifc to a man's health? Why should women taxpayers have to pay for those things then? We can go on a gender by gender basis and decide what's essential enough to be paid for by everyone or we can just suck it up and live with the fact that priorities aren't the same for both sexes and something sensitive like what goes on in women's womb should probably be left up to a woman.
I even think Lesy alluded to the same point at some point or another during her contributions to this debate. That's why I feel that a man's voice should be less critical on this decision, which it is not because like everything else generally OLD WHITE MEN have too much say in these matters. Women have the ability to understand the nuances of this whole issue better than men and they can see how it ties into their health in a complete manner. In my opininion it deserves to be treated the same as any other issue involving women' health. In your reasoning I guess post-natal care shouldn't be covered by this insurance either because a grown adult opted out of buyin a 7 dollar box of condoms and wanted to have a kid. Why stop at pre-natal, extend it to post-natal too, which is probably more expensive. That shouldn't be our responsibility either should it? You see where I'm going with this? Why are we drawing lines? Again different priorities for men and women. If most women are saying that it's important enough to be covered then we should probably take their word for it.
-
Permalink Reply by kifaru on
-
Dr can and do already prescribe bc pills for those conditions and they are already covered for that, It's called of label prescribing. Viagra is used for a disorder. Drs can already ready prescribe any medication for women's sexual dysfunction too like testosterone gel. One of the reasons women take hormone replacement therapy is for sexual dysfunction. It's not like there is a special set of prescribing that only cares for men's issues and not women's.
Arissa Nirvana said:if the person can't afford a simple pill then im sure they can't afford a kid. and i know nothing about contraception or etc because i'm a virgin. but if i was it wouldn't be my problem because I CAN afford BC. But i assume its up for debate because alot of women can not. therefore i think it should be covered. besides BC has other uses besides controlling birth , like ovarian cysts, or women with severe menstrual pains. and if the government or insurance or whoever can pay for VIAGRA which has only one purpose of getting some old man's dick up, then BC should be covered.
-
Permalink Reply by D'love on -
its should be .......
I would want my child..... but of course it not in "my" body now is it?
I really don't care about some other child being pureed into a fetus shake.
-
Permalink Reply by lyfenlyn on -
I used to work behind the scenes with insurances and male erection pills are covered on most plans. Why not birth control to even the playing field?
-
Permalink Reply by kifaru on
-
Erection pills are for a disorder. Pregnancy is not a disorder. Women who have insurance are already covered for medicines for sexual disorders such as hormone replacement patches or testosterone gel. The issues is not sexuality but reproduction.
lyfenlyn said:I used to work behind the scenes with insurances and male erection pills are covered on most plans. Why not birth control to even the playing field?
© 2013 Created by Matthew.
