Earn cash as you plan. Get a $20 gift card for every 200 points with The Knot Rewards
Catholic Weddings
chelseamb11
member
UGH
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.
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.
This discussion has been closed.
Re: UGH
fail
[QUOTE]yeh, that's not ME in that photo! Who is it?
Posted by ootmother2[/QUOTE]
Huh?
Teachery Blog
[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!
Teachery Blog
[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.
Teachery Blog
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.
[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>
Teachery Blog
[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.
[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!
Teachery Blog
Alternatively, I think insurance should also pay for TCOYF and a basal thermometer for women interested in NFP.
Just a thought.
[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.
SaveSave
"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."
I like the idea for money back if we use NFP
Teachery Blog
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
I just turned on the news (CBS) and my doctor was the first speaker interviewed on this.
I'm lucky working for the church-- NFP is completely free---no copay.
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.
[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.
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.
Waiting to meet the baby broccoli on 5/5/2013!
[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.
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.
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!
[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.
Teachery Blog