UGH

chelseamb11

This just makes me so angry.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43972446/ns/health-health_care/

CN: Legislation has been passed now that more or less says no woman will have to pay a co-pay for BC anymore.. it comes out of Uncle Sam's pocket instead.  AKA we are paying for other women's birth control.  I mean.. not as bad as us paying for women's abortions.. but this still makes me mad.
We debated this on SB a couple weeks ago.  Last time I checked we just narrowly avoided default.  Where does this country get off spending so much money on stuff that is not necessary to live.  No BC: Not life threatening.  No food: slightly more life threatening.
We need to focus on needs vs wants soo much more now.

ETA:
I am a huge fan of them covering paps and other preventative care.  But calling BC preventative haelthcare makes it sound like a baby is a disease.

ootmother2

I try to focus on the seperation of church and state.  I REALLY TRY!

fail

chelseamb11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:a69eccc5-ed18-418c-a336-0e3551090c4f">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]yeh, that's not ME in that photo!  Who is it?
Posted by ootmother2[/QUOTE]

Huh?

chelseamb11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:7048e4a9-bd48-411a-be03-cb1c00a642a9">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]After I posted, there was a picture of a girl with long, very heavy dark curly hair where my avatar is. NOT me! It's silly, I've seen it happen before to others but I think that was my first time
Posted by ootmother2[/QUOTE]

Haha whoops!

caitriona87

Yeah, agreed, this is ridiculous, even from a non-Catholic standpoint. The irony is so unbelievable that the same people who want the Church to "get out of the bedroom" are totally fine with inviting pharmaceutical companies, Planned Parenthood & the federal government in there.

ElisabethJoanne

I take birth control pills for secondary indications - to treat diseases, not fertility. How do I opt out because it's actual medical treatment, not preventative for me?

chelseamb11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:9ab25f2e-f8c0-4d78-854d-46016d54a55d">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]I take birth control pills for secondary indications - to treat diseases, not fertility. How do I opt out because it's actual medical treatment, not preventative for me?
Posted by ElisabethJoanne[/QUOTE]

That's a good question, I don't know if it's possible.
And geeeez.  I'd rather pay your copay than the copay of a girl who is only using it because she is trying to not get pregnant lol.

Meg1036

I think you can debate this all you want, but my understanding of the facts is different than yours.   It is that private insurers must cover birth control, not that the federal government will pay for them (the cost would rather be in private premiums; I actually think this is a somewhat important distinction, since my insurance premium already pays for a lot of services for other people that I do not use).

Additionally, there is an exception for organizations that provide insurance that object to birth control on religious grounds.

I'm not trying to be snarky; I just think its important to debate this on the facts.  More info here.

ElisabethJoanne

Answer to my own question: Following the office visit at which I got the prescription, my doctor would have had to enter codes describing what she did on the visit and any diagnoses. If she entered the diagnosis codes, but not "well woman" codes, my insurance company knows I take the pills for disease treatment, not "preventative care" ie contraception. So there is a way for insurance companies and Medicaid to figure out who takes birth control for diseases and who takes it for contraception. Under the law, however, anyone taking it for both does take it for contraception, and it has to be paid for.

chelseamb11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:8bc139e5-f2fe-446b-b5b7-432d4f42b37f">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]I think you can debate this all you want, but my understanding of the facts is different than yours.   It is that private insurers must cover birth control, not that the federal government will pay for them (the cost would rather be in private premiums; I actually think this is a somewhat important distinction, since my insurance premium already pays for a lot of services for other people that I do not use). Additionally, there is an exception for organizations that provide insurance that object to birth control on religious grounds. I'm not trying to be snarky; I just think its important to debate this on the facts.  More info here .
Posted by Meg1036[/QUOTE]

For sure, all the facts are good. Debating is good too.  And I wondered what you were aasking as well.  But more than one article has told me that it's the fed goverment that is covering it.  Plus this quote from the article I posted:
<p>"The recommendation faced opposition from conservative and religious groups that balked at <strong>using taxpayer money</strong> to cover birth control, especially the "morning-after pill." "

So that tells me tax money is covering the leftovers, not the insurance companies.</p>

ElisabethJoanne

You're right, Meg, but private insurance is paid for by everyone paying in about the same amount, and then people take out their health care costs at very different levels. So people enrolled in private insurance are contributing to a pool from which contraception will now be funded. You can go without private insurance (though doesn't Obamacare change that, too?) or try to switch to a religious insurance company, but if you have private insurance, it still works like government insurance. It's just funded through premiums, not taxes.

Meg1036

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:c89ef4bd-cd8d-498e-800f-152b54a8275f">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: UGH : For sure, all the facts are good. Debating is good too.  And I wondered what you were aasking as well.  But more than one article has told me that it's the fed goverment that is covering it.  Plus this quote from the article I posted: "The recommendation faced opposition from conservative and religious groups that balked at using taxpayer money to cover birth control, especially the "morning-after pill." " So that tells me tax money is covering the leftovers, not the insurance companies.
Posted by chelseamb11[/QUOTE]

Chelsea, my understanding is that premiums cover the difference, and that "taxpayer funds" would be used only for that insurance already provided by the government; this includes Medicaid, military dependents, civilian employees, etc.

Again, I could be wrong.  And I agree with pp that this means people pay for it in their private premiums.  I just think the distinction is somewhat important.

chelseamb11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:070f8f68-5378-46bc-b785-55e6c0593fc4">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: UGH : Chelsea, my understanding is that premiums cover the difference, and that "taxpayer funds" would be used only for that insurance already provided by the government; this includes Medicaid, military dependents, civilian employees, etc. Again, I could be wrong.  And I agree with pp that this means people pay for it in their private premiums.  I just think the distinction is somewhat important.
Posted by Meg1036[/QUOTE]

I agree.  I will definitely be looking at it some more because I'm very curious.  I've gotten the impression that it's MORE taxpayer money going out.  I'll research and get back to this!

mica178

I would like my insurance company to give me $5/month while I use NFP.  I'll give them a discount from the $10 that women on hormonal BC are saving. 

Alternatively, I think insurance should also pay for TCOYF and a basal thermometer for women interested in NFP.

Just a thought.

Meg1036

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:9cac147c-ca79-45ec-bbf4-7fe3e1241b7e">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]I would like my insurance company to give me $5/month while I use NFP.  I'll give them a discount from the $10 that women on hormonal BC are saving.  Alternatively, I think insurance should also pay for TCOYF and a basal thermometer for women interested in NFP. Just a thought.
Posted by mica178[/QUOTE]

This is an interesting idea, I think.  I mean, it seems like NFP meets the same threshold for preventative care that ABC does.

monkeysip

I'm with you, Mica.  Not to mention that NFP doesn't just prevent babies (which, of course, are not a disease!) but it helps detect other reproductive problems a woman could be having.  The earlier something is treated, the more money the insurance company saves.  Charting (whether used to prevent children or not) just makes good health sense.

I too though am glad that they're going to cover things like paps.

chelseamb11

Okay so what I got was that the government isn't footing the bill, however many predict that other premiums will go up because of it.
"Although the new women's preventive services will be free of any additional charge to patients, somebody will have to pay. The cost will be spread among other people with health insurance, resulting in slightly higher premiums."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/01/insurers-must-cover-birth-control-with-no-copays/#ixzz1TpvrGqW8

I like the idea for money back if we use NFP

ootmother2

I have UnitedHealthCare and I assume they pay for abortions and birth control as well.

I have Medicare temporarily because I'm disabled at the moment.

There's not really much I can do about changing insurance companies or telling them I don;t need them

ootmother2

haha

I just turned on the news (CBS) and my doctor was the first speaker interviewed on this.

agapecarrie

What bothers me about this is the terrible problems that BC actually causes....its so ridiculous the connection to breast cancer. All of the side effects and harm is just yet again swept under the rug.

I'm lucky working for the church-- NFP is completely free---no copay.

caitriona87

After thinking this over some more I had the same idea as some others...they should be paying for NFP classes as well, especially in light of the health risks of HBC (of which NFP has none) and that NFP can actually be used to detect health problems. Maybe if we all wrote to our representatives/newspapers etc this idea could at least begin to circulate.

lisa89760

Honestly, I don't have a problem with it.  To be realistic, a lot of people that this will hopefully help aren't going to take the time to learn and use NFP, they use no type of birth control and then they get pregnant.  So I think this is a way to prevent unwanted pregnancy.  Is that right? No, Does it happen? Yes. Yes I think they should be taught NFP - but do I realistically think that it would be done? No. 

Clarifying: I don't think it's right and I think that NFP should be equally as covered as ABC and be discussed as a form of BC - but I think giving women access to lower cost ABC is more realistic.

newlyseliski

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:8bc139e5-f2fe-446b-b5b7-432d4f42b37f">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]Additionally, there is an exception for organizations that provide insurance that object to birth control on religious grounds. Posted by Meg1036[/QUOTE]

Good... it better stay that way!  Someone usually tends to get up in arms about it and needlessly sue a religious organization for "discriminating" against women and tying them up in legal red tape.  I agree with the other ladies that they really should start providing incentive for people to opt for NFP since it really would save money in the long run... not to mention the excess hormones from ABC polluting the water supply.

doctabroccoli

I agree that this is questionable from a religious standpoint and that they should pay for NFP supplies too.

That being said, I'm going to echo lisa's sentiment.  Unplanned pregnancies to those in need are a large drain on our economy from the standpoint of welfare, food stamps, and subsidized housing.  If some of that cost could be saved by providing birth control, then it makes sense from an economic standpoint.  Religion doesn't run our government/economy, and even if we are strong with our faith, we know the effects of our economy being in the dumps.

What remains to be seen is if providing birth control will reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies to those living in poverty in order to have the desired economic effect.  I honestly think it would be great to have a long-term study to go along with this new policy to examine its impacts.  I have no idea if there's any such study in the pipeline, but I would be really interested to see these kind of statistics in a few years. 

lisa89760

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:2133476a-608d-431b-9839-6701dd74e86b">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]I agree that this is questionable from a religious standpoint and that they should pay for NFP supplies too. That being said, I'm going to echo lisa's sentiment.  Unplanned pregnancies to those in need are a large drain on our economy from the standpoint of welfare, food stamps, and subsidized housing.  If some of that cost could be saved by providing birth control, then it makes sense from an economic standpoint.  Religion doesn't run our government/economy, and even if we are strong with our faith, we know the effects of our economy being in the dumps. <strong>What remains to be seen is if providing birth control will reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies to those living in poverty in order to have the desired economic effect.  I honestly think it would be great to have a long-term study to go along with this new policy to examine its impacts.  I have no idea if there's any such study in the pipeline, but I would be really interested to see these kind of statistics in a few years. 
</strong>Posted by doctabroccoli[/QUOTE]

You said it so much better! =) Exactly what I was thinking! Plus I completely agree on this bolded part.  It would be very interesting.

lalaith50

Sacred Tradition (including all the great theologians like Thomas Aquinas), Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium have always taught that the end does not justify the means. (The opposite idea of that came from Machiavelli...)

If we are not in agreement with that basic moral principal, than I am not sure that this is going to be a productive discussion...

caitriona87

Religion may not run the government (nor have I seen anyone here say that it should) but natural law should be its foundation, and contraception is also contrary to natural law. I also think a lot of well-meaning people have been a sold a line by Planned Parenthood and their ilk. We've had forty solid years of their contraceptive program in place, pushed by virtually every societal institution (government, education, media, etc.) There has never been a society more saturated with contraception than ours. And yet, we have more "unplanned pregnancies" (a term I hate) than ever before. We also have over one million surgical abortions each year. Not to mention the millions of chemical abortions that take place as a result of hormonal contraceptives.


Also, the ends do not justify the means. We cannot use evil means to reach a good end, no matter how good the end in question. Even if contraception would solve all the world's problems (which, as a matter of fact, we were told it would when it was first introduced--there was to be no more abortion, divorce, or child abuse ever again) it would still be illicit. And of course, divorce and abortion have skyrocketed and child abuse is as common as ever.

lalaith50

and what caitriona said. :-)

mica178

From a purely economical, political and public health standpoint, free birth control has been available to the young and poor for decades, and that hasn't changed the unplanned/ unwanted pregnancy rate in that demographic.  This newest change will probably make life easier/less expensive for a bunch of otherwise responsible, middle class women who are already on birth control.  Hey administrators of this country!  It's going to take more than free hormones to change things!  (Just sayin'.)

newlyseliski

I don't think that you can necessarily argue that BC is an optimal solution to poverty... if anything, I think it can perpetuate it in the same way that abortion often does.  Many women seek abortions due to "failed" birth control... it is so common to still get pregnant while on the pill!

Organizations first and foremost should try to emphasize the importance of a stable and committed family foundation and responsible parenthood.  They should encourage women to demand a supportive and committed spouse rather than an irresponsible boyfriend who only comes around when he wants something.  Yes... I know this is a huge generalization... but a magical pill isn't going to ultimately remedy these types of circumstances for families trapped in the cycle of poverty... it goes a lot deeper than economic and health issues!

chelseamb11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_ugh?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c5ba1de7-afc0-423a-81e6-1a725584a461Post:f3c242d3-64e4-40ef-b35a-4a3fb08f98ad">Re: UGH</a>:
[QUOTE]Religion may not run the government (nor have I seen anyone here say that it should) but natural law should be its foundation, and contraception is also contrary to natural law. I also think a lot of well-meaning people have been a sold a line by Planned Parenthood and their ilk. We've had forty solid years of their contraceptive program in place, pushed by virtually every societal institution (government, education, media, etc.) <strong>There has never been a society more saturated with contraception than ours. And yet, we have more "unplanned pregnancies" (a term I hate) than ever before.</strong> We also have over one million surgical abortions each year. Not to mention the millions of chemical abortions that take place as a result of hormonal contraceptives. Also, the ends do not justify the means. We cannot use evil means to reach a good end, no matter how good the end in question. Even if contraception would solve all the world's problems (which, as a matter of fact, we were told it would when it was first introduced--there was to be no more abortion, divorce, or child abuse ever again) it would still be illicit. And of course, divorce and abortion have skyrocketed and child abuse is as common as ever.
Posted by caitriona87[/QUOTE]

THIS. Look back 100 years ago.  Birth control was not even close to as prominent as it is now, yet now there are more unplanned pregnancies and more abortions.  Birth control does NOT equal less unplanned pregnancies and abortions.  It just gives people that false sense of security so that they have more sex.

I did even MORE research and as of now, the cost does not come from taxes.  But once Obamacare kicks in (2014), if you have public health insurance, taxes are paying for that birth control.  If you have private, most likely your premiums will go up to cover this.  Immediate effect is very small.  Long term is very large.

It just makes me so mad the excuses that they are coming up with to support it.  Gender equality?  BALONEY.  I don't need birth control to feel equal to the opposite sex.