US orders Health Insurance to Cover Birth Control for Women

An article from NPR

You can read even more from NPR or other news sources.

How do YOU feel about this change to health policy? Do you feel it's fair to order health insurance companies to cover hormonal birth control, or do you feel it's just a way to push them to jack up their premiums? If you use birth control, how much do you pay for your prescription each month? Will this make any significant change in your budget, or do you expect to see it passed on via your premium?

Personally, I'm a fan of the push to cover more preventative health services, and I'd include birth control under that umbrella. I'd love to see condoms and other non-prescription, non-hormonal methods included under this push, but it's true that condoms are often available for free elsewhere. I think we'll definitely see this passed along via premiums, but I don't mind too much - I'd rather pay a little extra for someone else's preventative care knowing that I don't have to worry about coverage should I have some major medical event. It's the nature of insurance.

I am not currently using hormonal birth control, but it is nice to know that I could potentially pursue an IUD in the future without worrying about the cost. I could see a lot more women using hormonal birth control as a result of the reduced cost, and I'm hopeful that this will allow more women to explore different brands/kinds of hormonal birth control without having to worry about what will get them the lowest copay possible.

 

I saw IUD in your comments and my first thought was "ouch". My wife had to have one surgically removed after it punctured her and lodged where it was not supposed to.

 

I can see the price of birth control tripling now that insurance is going to pay for it. If there is a price increase, poor people without insurance are going to be even less likely to use it. This is very unfortunate as I believe they are the ones that need it the most. I'm not even close to an expert on the subject though. I don't know the difference between hormonal birth control and regular ol birth control. I honestly don't know why this wasn't covered sooner. Vasectomies are covered and that's a preventative and elective surgery.

 

This is what happens when you kill planned parenthood (where I was always sure to get free condoms).

 

I fully support this. Though I guess I just assumed that it was covered. Shows how much I know. My experience paying for birth control is composed entirely of buying condoms at the nearest drugstore.

Ye olde interruptus will always be free.

 

Why does this country have issues with birth control and family planning? When did it become the norm that ignorance is the best method to teach future generations about sex, the potential diseases that go with sex, and having children? I know we have a VERY loud religious majority here, but sticking your head in a bucket of sand is not the way to deal with ANY problem, especially one of this size and magnitude.

That said, it's about time health insurance companies were shoved into doing what they should be doing and providing health care! [/rant]

 

But if we pretend that sex isn't horrible, then people might actually have sex. Shutup! It's going to work! Shut up!!!!!!

 

I've never had my birth control paid for by insurance (except when hubby was in the military, but all prescriptions were free). Way back in the day, I went to the local health clinic because they charged based on income, so I didn't pay much for my pills. I paid full price for both my IUDs, but since they last 5 years, the cost per month isn't that bad.

 

I know there are a lot of people who are very opposed to any type of birth control however, I think measures that prevent pregnancy are good. I think it is overall a good bill and is important to provide those who are not looking to become pregnant with the proper medication. I know that most insurances cover it today but it will be good to have it universal.

 

The discussion is always framed wrong. The real motive of social conservatives becomes clear when you discard the individual discussions of abortion, birth control, and rape laws and frame it as a fundamental disagreement over whether it's right to subjugate women and punish women for having sex. It's outright medieval.

I've come around on this issue in the past few years. The idea of for-profit health insurance is abhorrent. because it inherently requires a balance of a profit motive with human suffering. This will hopefully be one step toward the realization that there is an inherent problem with for-profit insurance and that a single payer system that negotiates prices of medical care, drugs, and medical device prices is not only more ethical but cheaper.

 

The book Freakonomics presents a theory that a mid 90's drop in crime was a direct result of Roe vs. Wade. I don't know if it is true, but I follow the logic. "A large number of individuals likely to grow up into criminals (unwanted children) were never born." It would be even better if we could prevent the pregnancies before they happen. There is a larger picture to consider.

 

Lionrock, that article was quite interesting. I am sure that if there was a greater use (i.e. availability) of birth control in general, there would be a lot less need for abortions.

MSD, I am with you on the idea that for profit health care is a problem but I am not sure that it's the health care providers per se that are the problem in the US. I would say that the majority of the issues stem from the insurance companies.

 

Poor people are going to have insurance supposedly... Everyone is supposed to have health insurance by 2014.

 

Not the providers, the insurance companies. I am explicitly in favor of a single payer insurance option and opposed to a National Health Service type system.

 

This will also cover the "morning after pill" or Plan B as well so yet another way of a loophole or abuse to the system. This just seems to open Pandora's box also when it comes to young teenage females as an opportunity to live free without consequence which is not necessarily a good thing IMO. Should it be covered? Yes. Should there be "some" restrictions? Absolutely.

 

How is Plan B a loophole or abuse to the system? It's emergency contraception. No one in their right mind would use Plan B as normal birth control, since it tends to have some pretty severe side effects. I keep it on hand as a "just in case" even though I am quite responsible with using condoms.

There are still consequences to "living freely" even with covered birth control, if by "living freely" you mean having a lot of casual sex. Namely, STDs and social consequences. Why is it a bad thing to potentially eliminate unwanted teenage pregnancy from that equation, though? Thinking of pregnancy or having an unwanted child as a consequence or punishment for making poor sexual decisions is really not a productive way to think in terms of every child born having the best potential possible for a good life.

 

I suspect your restrictions would have the net effect of increasing the abortion rate.

 

As the old saying goes you give someone an inch and they take a mile. I am speaking solely on what I see here in my hometown. With a very high statistic on "underage" parenting, people riding the system, and always looking for that government hand-out, is where I see this as being a loophole and/or abuse to the system. Mainly "abuse to the system" being the manufacturers, insurance companies, and all other parties involved raising prices to cover the cost. Domino effect if you will...

What happened to good ole morals in today's society. With 2 children of my own rapidly approaching the age of consent this definitely concerns me as a father. Why would I want my daughter to have an excuse to "live freely" as I stated earlier. Why not just threaten her with her life the good ole fashioned way like our parents did? Society today has given a big OK on lots of casual sex which in turn gives spoiled teenagers an excuse not only to participate in these activities but also to flee when things go wrong leaving someone else responsible for their actions. Again, just speaking from what I see on a daily basis here. If these folks want to be responsible enough to have sex and knowing the risk, then I say it is up to them to provide for them and their children. If they can't handle the responsibility then don't participate at all.

 

Part of being responsible enough to have sex is being aware of, educated in, and responsible in USING forms of birth control and STD prevention to reduce the risk of pregnancy and STDs. Sex in and of itself is not a bad thing, and society has progressed to the point where many people have very liberal views of sex. If your children share your conservative view, fine - but if they don't, why prevent them from reducing their risk in having sex? Every decision we make in our lives is a calculated risk of some sort - giving people (and this birth control coverage is for all women, not just teenagers) the tools they need to reduce their risks associated with particular decisions is not something I see as a bad thing.

When your children learn to drive, will you teach them how to use seat belts and follow proper driving laws? By doing so, you're reducing the risk of horrible consequences when they get behind the wheel. Or would you rather them not get behind the wheel of a vehicle unless they're willing to take the risk of dying and not take any precautions to prevent that?

I see birth control, condoms, and sexual education as something like seat belts and driver's ed - if you're willing to take the risk of having sex, you might as well take precautions to reduce the consequences associated with it.