(BLOGHER OPEN DEBATE) Should Birth Control be Free?

AnitaG.
G. stands for GIRL

The article poses:

"What if birth control pills were free to every insurance-holder in America?"

Don't the Americans have to PAY for the insurance, or do the American(s) have free insurance these days.

/Birth/-"Control" (pills?) are like plastic-land minor combinations of oestrogene to prepare the teenage to twenty-year old body (over one decade only) for pregnancy in the future so NO too much mommy baby-fat.

AnitaG.
G. stands for GIRL

Editor's Note (circa. 2005 - to date):
Further to the above, you are really NOT schizophrenic; you do NOT have cancer; you do NOT have any other illness; you do NOT have mental illness. You are ALL simply taking differing doses of, i.e. OEstrogen to prepare your bodies for upcoming pregnancies, so, NO too much baby-fat. The names of the ("meds") like ("pills" - see above) are only the complex names of OEstrogen.

love,

DOCTOR ANITA G.
G. does stand for GIRL

I became the DOCTOR (Completed; Attained; Graduated from Medical School, also) at the Age of 28, in the Republic of South Africa.
RED FALCON on Graduation Day!

I think this is a WONDERFUL IDEA. Let's not forget that birth control pills are also speculated to reduce risk of ovarian cancer, in addition to controlling periods (perhaps reducing anemia in menstrating women), and allowing women to take control of their reproductive lives.

While we are at it, lets make access to IUDs much easier for women who want them.

Yes! Why can't men pitch in for birth control costs? Simple.

On the subject of cost--as I mentioned in another comment, I have a copper IUD. It is more effective than the pill, both on paper and in practice, since it's not prone to human error. And, it was $80 for a one-time insertion that will last for 5 years. Dirt cheap, and it is literally virtually impossible for me to get pregnant. Basically even if a sperm reached one of my eggs, it could not possibly implant itself and grow.

It's a common misconception (pardon the pun) that vasectomies are easily reversible, even the no-scalpel vasectomies. They can be reversed in about 70% of cases. It's no guarantee. My common-law partner is looking into getting one and the doctors tell you to consider it a permanent decision to never, ever have children.

Unfortunately, or maybe not so unfortunately, any type of long-term birth control besides condoms is really the realm of the woman.

Birth control is not free in Canada, or at least not all of Canada because it's not covered where I live. Although like most prescription drugs (or not drugs, I assume we're not just talking about The Pill) I do believe it is cheaper.

If you don't have any kind of drug plan it ranges from $10-20 a month. Usually if you have benefits through a job or something, it's covered to the point that you pay a very small amount, like $3-4, a month. But prescription drugs are not part of universal health care here.

But I would have no problem with it being free, of course.

Another thing--I can't speak for all of Canada, again, but my province covers the cost of tubal ligation and vasectomies. You just have to get a doctor referral-- although that's not necessarily so straightforward if you're young and/or childless, and I suppose for good reason since it's not a decision you can easily reverse. I had a hard enough time finding a doctor to insert an IUD for me because I am not married and haven't had any children.

I think it has something more to do with the fact that having a baby, which a lot of people choose to do, costs a lot more than buying birth control - at least in the short run. People would FREAK if pregnancy/labor/etc were not covered because it's such a high cost and is something that a lot of people choose to do. Plus, for those that want a baby but can't afford the costs that come with birthing it, they can rely on insurance.

Birth control, however, is still a relatively cheap option for everyone - you can buy the pill [4-50 a month, depending], buy a box of condoms [.25-.50 per condom, depending on which you buy], or not have sex [free]. Plus, there are a multitude of other options that you can consider which aren't that costly [nuva ring, etc].

Another fact is a lot of policy makers just don't want to dabble into preventative care [sad but true - at least according to the policy class I took in college ;0)]. It's harder to measure the effects of preventative care due to human error, which makes it even harder to do a cost-benefit analysis, which some companies use to create their policies. Paying for something after it happens is a lot easier than paying for something that may or may not decrease the costs in the long run if you don't have good enough data to back it up. Plus, if it fails, you still have to pay for the cost that you were trying to avoid in the first place.

Sincerely,

Randa from About Life* ( http://aboutlifestar.blogspot.com/ )

Free birth control over unwanted pregnancies sounds good to me. I stand my ground on a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body and I think if we had the option for free birth control we'd have more control over our OWN bodies. :)

The answer to your last question -- that's the day when I wonder where America's heart went. There's a line that we step over when we refuse to do our part to benefit a larger community. And that doesn't mean that we need to lose our own needs in that.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

I'm not sure we can equate allowing other people to use birth control to not allowing someone to practice their religion. People can still be Catholic, can still choose not to use birth control themselves, but give that option to others.

I think gov't is getting involved because we've set up a system where they have to get involved or consumers are being taken advantage of when our medical treatment is being dictated by a financial institution. If they didn't mandate certain coverage, we'd have a non-medical entity deciding what it wants to cover...or not.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

It is a debate and you make a good point. Though it is fair to cover pregnancy and not preventing pregnancy? I understand not covering anything, but I'm not sure how insurance picks and chooses what it covers.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

I think the government should work for the greater good of people and be secular.

That means that if people benefit from it and is largely a necessity, the government can enforce pill coverage so that those who don't have money could also afford them.

A lot of people do have problems with their periods, pain, irregular bleeding, mood fluctuation,etc. And in this day age, when women want to be active, being able to shorten or obliterate the period is a very nice benefit, too.

As to "Women aren't entitled to be taken care of when they can take care of themselves": it will only be fair to say that when men and women actually have equal power in their relationships. Most men want to have sex without condoms. Women do tend to buckle to their request. And studies have shown that abstinence only education does NOT prevent unwanted pregnancy. That is the reality.

As to "when did we decide what an individual business was required to do": there are many instances. Restaurants are obligated to be non-smoking, business must not discriminate against people due to their race, etc..... all for the greater good of the people.

As for the freedom: women should be able to choose their lifestyle and not be hindered by others. Politicians (especially men) cannot force women to bare whatever child a women became pregnant with.

As for financial aspect: what happens if people started saying "I don't want to pay taxes to finance medical care for the people who get sick because they smoke or are obese. I'm fit and healthy why do I have to pay?"

Birth control definitely does fit into preventative care, however
it is not the only prevention for pregnancies. There are many other
ways to prevent pregnancies for one thing, (yes, abstinence included, I said it!)
Women aren't entitled to be taken care of when they can take care of themselves.

Second, when did we decide what an individual business was required to do? It's their business, and whether it stays afloat or not depends on who patronizes it. If
you don't like the way a business is running things, then why are you still shopping
there anyway? Supply and demand, friends! -through business, which is what they are, not government.
So-Yes, the government should take a step back from private company affairs.

I'd like to point out what a serious case the whole "some companies
claim it goes against there religion" deal.
How can our country fight and fight and fight on a daily basis for new rights for homosexuals, womens rights, even animal protection, and yet deliberately encroach on one of our most fundamental laws-the freedom of religion?

I think the issue at hand is less that religious groups don't want it
to be more easily accessable (that's definitely a motive, but not the main issue), but that they just plain don't want to pay for it! Why should they?
It's completely atrocious that people would have to pay to enable something
that they're so explicitly against. THAT is a major violation of freedom.
Forcing Christians to pay for planned parenthood is like forcing gays to sponsor prop 8.
In my view, it would be taking away a persons freedom of choice, speech, and
yes even religion.

By not allowing this bill to pass, no one will be infringing on others and their rights. Pills aren't an unalienable right.
But, again, if it is passed, then America will have given up it's initial freedom.

Lucinda- because the nation doesn't have a set religion- religion has no place in our nation? Religion is especially relevent to this topic BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL BE FORCED TO GO AGAINST THEIRS.

Yavanna,

I actually completely forgot to add that when I was writing my response! I can't be on birth control pills because the hormones mess with my body so I would essentially be paying for something [cause chances are, if it's "free" by your insurance, you're paying for it in monthly insurance bills] that I can't even use.

If they make the pill free, then they should make other forms of birth control either free or severely reduced. Ever try to get an IUD? Yeah, try hundreds of dollars for one little thing. Sure, it last for five-ten years but if you react badly to it, you've made a larger investment for a one-time shot.

Sincerely,

Randa from About Life* ( http://aboutlifestar.blogspot.com/ )

I agree with Randa. I don't mind so much cheap or free birth control, even if I have religious issues with it. I recognize most people don't have these objections, and I don't want to limit them anymore than I want them to limit me.

But here's my two cents. If they do make birth control free, I would want, no, demand they make other birth control options free as well. Not every woman can take hormonal birth control like that, and not every woman wants to. If birth control would be covered for me, I want them to cover whatever method of birth control I choose.

unless you are imposing them on others, especially at the cost of medical care. And that was mainly my point. It seems pretty clear-cut until people bring morals and religion into the argument where it really has no place for precisely the reason you state--we don't have a national religion.

Or maybe Georgia is just really on the game [ha ha ha. Yeah right :0)] but when I was on birth control, it was only $4.00 for a three month prescription. Awesome insurance, maybe? I also knew plenty of people in college and out that got free birth control because they had such low incomes. So I kind of always thought that if you're on the low socioeconomic status pole, you could still get free birth control [health department, I think, is who gives it out here] because that's what I've seen. Some cities in Georgia even have teen pregnancy centers within walking distance of the school that gives out free birth control - the organizations are even advertised in the schools.

While I definitely think that birth control should be cheaper for everyone, I don't know if I'd necessary believe it should be free for everyone. Fact of the matter is, there is a way to prevent pregnancy that is absolutely free - not having sex [and I'm saying this as a sexually active I-don't-want-to-have-a-baby female who isn't on the pill]. If penile-vaginal sex is something that you want, then you should have the responsibility to be fully protected. If you're not, then you need to be prepared for the consequences. I don't think it's the insurances responsibility to give it to you for free.

Maybe a little harsh and not within the general theme of the other comments but, hey, it's a debate, right? ;0]

Sincerely,

Randa from About Life* ( http://aboutlifestar.blogspot.com/ )

Absolutely true.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

It's interesting that up until this point, we're all 100% in agreement to cover them. Will there be any takers for not offering them as part of preventative care?

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

Absolutely -- they're used in fertility treatments all the time.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

It's hard to comment because I'm not Catholic (and my religion allows birth control), but it does seem to set up women to fail. Though, I assume if you're also not supposed to have premarital sex, you wouldn't have to worry about birth control? Unless you're married and not wanting children?

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

Three cheers to this :-)

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

yes, yes, yes! just think of all of the other expenses we could avoid if birth control were more widely available (and used).

More Americans need to know our health care can be managed in a better way.

Yes, there are certain government-run programs which could be a lot better - but countries like Australia prove that government health care doesn't always mean you won't get the care you need.

They should be covered. They are a medication period. Not covering allows the insurance company to take a role in deciding if birth control pills are appropriate. Insurance companies routinely decide not to pay for ineffective or experimental medication and I understand that. Birth control does not fall into that category of medication.
Centerist Cynic

www.whatweshouldknowblog.com ( http://www.whatweshouldknowblog.com )

What drives me bonkers is the mislabeling of these pills as birth control. Many women are on the pill without being sexually active, and for non-sex-related reasons. From acne to endometriosis, the pill is a MEDICAL solution. Hormonal contraceptives should be covered by anyone who needs them whether as a contraceptive or for other medical issues.

"The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."--Carl Sagan

I haven't needed birth control for several years (four years of single celibacy, followed by marriage to a man who'd had a vasectomy), but for most of the years I was on the Pill, it was not covered by my insurance. I went into shock when I ended up on a plan that DID pay for it. I'm not sure it should be free, but it's absolutely preventative and should be covered as such. It's far less costly than the alternative, and one would think insurers would be aware of that even without a government mandate.

And I've always had trouble grasping the logic of being against both effective birth control AND abortion rights - I mean, I get the religious beliefs behind it (having been Catholic for most of my life), but it just doesn't make sense.

Florinda

Blogging at The 3 R's: Reading, 'Riting, and Randomness ( http://www.3rsblog.com/ )

The contradiction between "abortion is bad, we shouldn't have any abortions" and "birth control should be hard to come by" drives me bonkers. Oh, yes, everyone should be abstinent until they are ready to have babies. Uh huh. Sure. Not only is that NEVER EVER EVER GOING TO HAPPEN, but I don't think that it SHOULD. And it certainly shouldn't be mandated or seen as any kind of guiding philosophy for enacting policy.

The pill is safe for the majority of women, and an easy and effective way to prevent pregnancy for those who would like to prevent it (and yes, I think other forms of birth control should be included in this discussion). It's a whole crap-ton less expensive than delivering and raising a child, and significantly less emotionally traumatic, invasive, or morally debatable than abortions for unwanted pregnancies (which should still be safe and legal and accessible).

But hey, let's make sure the women who can least afford to pay out of pocket for the pill are most likely to end up with unintended pregnancies, keeping them way down on the socio-economic ladder. That seems fair and totally in line with the American Spirit, don't you think?

Grrr.

-Liz@lizinprogress

www.goddessinprogressblog.com ( http://www.goddessinprogressblog.com )

And when it's not covered, it's really expensive. Personally, I always paid for it, but I could also see taking your chances without birth control if you had to pay $50+ per month.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

I think it should be. When I first got married, it wasn't even "covered" by our insurance and I paid full price. I remember the year that changed and I only paid a small fee for every three months. I was in Heaven.

Contributing Editor Jenna Hatfield (@FireMom ( http://twitter.com/FireMom )) blogs at Stop, Drop and Blog ( http://stopdropandblog.com ) and The Chronicles of Munchkin Land ( http://thechroniclesofmunchkinland.com ). She is a freelance writer and photographer.

That's it! I'm moving to Australia :-)

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

Not condescending at all -- I wish we had a different system. It also varies often from state to state, insurance company to insurance company. And if your employer keeps switching insurance companies, it sometimes means that you need to switch doctors since not all doctors take the same insurance.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

But a vasectomy is an invasive procedure that often times cannot be undone and fertility restored. Why would more invasive be preferable to less invasive.

I totally agree that both should take responsibility for birth control, and this should even the cost factor so that women can afford to have birth control.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

That is the point that needs to be remembered -- this hardly encourages people to utilize birth control. It simply makes it accessible to those who wish to use it and were unable to prior to this point due to cost.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

The problem, of course, is that we don't have a national religion, so it's difficult when we start bringing those religious beliefs to the lawmaking.

And, at the same time, so many people take their ethical beliefs from their religion.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

The pill here is about $8 to $15 a month, depending on what type you're on, and it is given for free (and/or very cheap) to women with low incomes, including teenagers (16 and over).

A visit to the doctor can be free, too, so you can get a script, a check up, etc.

It seems to work very well, and I don't see any rampant moral degeneration as a result.

We have less than half the teen birth rate than in the US, and maybe that's part of it.

On a bit of tangent...

My husband and I both shuddered a little when we read this line:

"In addition, mandating coverage would mean that some faith-based employers would need to offer insurance that contradicts the religious beliefs of the organization."

The concept of my employer deciding what health care I receive scares me. I'm very glad not to rely on a benevolent employer for my general well-being.

In Australia health care is provided by the Government. There is private (individual) health insurance, but it really just gets you a better room in hospital, and cheaper dental.

I hope I don't sound condescending - its just that we get reminded how lucky we are when we read about the system in the US.

I sincerely hope the system can be made to treat people better and more fairly where you are.

Good luck!

I think both parties should take responsibility for birth control. Specifically I think men should be getting reversible vasectomies. I have no evidence, but I suspect reversible vasectomies would be far cheaper than supplying women with BCP for decades. Both options should be covered fully as preventative care by insurance.

Two different insurance companies have jerked me around the last decade over birth control pills. They always want to charge like $50 a package and basically penalize you for using them (as if pregnancy is any cheaper). So I buy mine from the local Planned Parenthood. I get to support accessible family planning and not big money insurers, and that's just fine.

I believe with all of my resolve that we should not legislate morality, particularly in areas so important as parenthood. Covering birth control as preventative medicine makes nothing but great sense to me. Let the people choose if it's moral.

Solidarity.

--Kristina

www.OnBlank.com ( http://www.OnBlank.com )

It certainly is preventative medicine. They hand out free condoms all the time. Why not pills?

Unfortunately, I think those who will oppose it most strongly are those who want to legislate morals. That's really the root of the argument I believe.

It's a painful realization how despite the strides we make in health care advances, so much of the population can't partake in the technology/medication/procedures.

Thank you for being the first one in the conversation.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

Until our country can provide complete health care to our citizens in the form of a single-payer, universal system, we can't be calling ourselves the greatest country in the world.

European nations and Canada do it - we can do it better.