I think it should be covered by every insurance company but I don't have an issue with a co-pay. It should be treated like any other med.

Its about time. They will cover Viagra so they should cover birth control. Things have always been slanted towards men. I remember every time a commercial would come on for feminine hygiene products, or the bra ad with the leering husband I would wish for a jock itch product commercial. Women's medical issues were rarely studied as much as men's, and don't you just know a man invented the mammogram machine? Seriously! When my male dr wanted me to get a mammogram I told him I would as soon as he got his testicles checked for cancer the same way. He turned deathly pale and gave me the phone number for a less painful way.

Well this is gonna backfire against the working man big time, like most of what Obama does. Covering Birth Control is stupid. IMO, if you want such a drug, pay for the darned things yourself. Sad that there will be victims of this who aren't caught up in BC that will still end up paying for this. People are stupid enough to think this is good though and that somebody else will actually be footing the bill for their imaginary safety net.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Well this is gonna backfire against the working man big time, like most of what Obama does. Covering Birth Control is stupid. IMO, if you want such a drug, pay for the darned things yourself. Sad that there will be victims of this who aren't caught up in BC that will still end up paying for this. People are stupid enough to think this is good though and that somebody else will actually be footing the bill for their imaginary safety net.

But it is just fine that Viagra for men is covered?

But is it better for BC/BS to foot the bill for an unwanted child? Delivery costs and pre-nato check ups are outrageous. THe difference between a pill and an unwanted child?
When the religious right gets all up in arms over viagra scripts and vasectomies (don't tell the brown-shirt pope, but BC/BS paid for my MALE birth control)!), MAY BE I will take their objections more seriously..

Good. I'd rather BC be covered on health coverage plans than have their women give birth to babies that welfare gotta pay for.

i think that it should be covered. I had an Aetna plan where my copays for BC were $30 per month, and the cost of the drug was $33.... they only paid $3. however, for viagra, the copay was only $10--- and they paid like $60 per month for it. Seemed really twisted to me!

When I switched to my IUD I paid $150 for a 10yr implant... what a savings to the insurance company--- I could have had quite a few kids in 10 years!

This country is soooo concerned with political correctness and freedom of religion... yet it was discussed that my employer should be able to dictate his religious/moral/personal beliefs on me??? sounds crazy

I remember wanting birth control when I turned 18, and having to stop using it because I couldn't afford the ridiculous co-pay my insurance required. The only way I could get it for cheap was to stand in line at the free clinic while I was unemployed. And this was just for the pills--anything else was unaffordable until I started my current job 4 years ago and got somewhat decent health coverage.

I'm sure many won't understand this move because they've never had to scramble for birth control.

wants2laugh wrote:

i think that it should be covered. I had an Aetna plan where my copays for BC were $30 per month, and the cost of the drug was $33.... they only paid $3.

It should have been the other way around. The pharmaceutical & insurance companies are disgusting.

Cool. I don't take BC pills, but it's nice to know that my insurance will cover it.

yep.. i had been on many different pills and always had bad reactions. Then when I decided on the IUD, my dr's nurse tried to force me into a 5 yr one WITH hormones... hormones that were already making me sick! Just because it cost more than the 10yr IUD without hormones.

I actually went to another doctors office to get my IUD---after going to the same dr for 10 yrs!!! the medical/insurance systems suck!

The more I hear about this, the more I am convinced that it's simply anti-religious bigotry and now I am even more fired than ever to see this piece of garbage overturned as the intolerant crap that it is. Mandating this is absolutely despicable and can not and should not stand. This is the REAL violation of separation of Church and State but you never hear your whinny advocates who get all pissy when a politician wants to pray out to protect the Church from the State, which was actually the original intent of the phrase. (Oh, irony.) Mandating birth control is probably one of the lowest decision made yet by one of the lowest administrations ever, but I guess it's hardly surprising.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

The more I hear about this, the more I am convinced that it's simply anti-religious bigotry and now I am even more fired than ever to see this piece of garbage overturned as the intolerant crap that it is. Mandating this is absolutely despicable and can not and should not stand. This is the REAL violation of separation of Church and State but you never hear your whinny advocates who get all pissy when a politician wants to pray out to protect the Church from the State, which was actually the original intent of the phrase. (Oh, irony.) Mandating birth control is probably one of the lowest decision made yet by one of the lowest administrations ever, but I guess it's hardly surprising.

exactly HOW is this anti-religious? What it is doing is making sure BC is available to those who WANT it. If someone does not believe in BC, then they do not have to get it. I dont understand... truly i dont. If an employer is christian and believes it is wrong, then he should not prescribe to BC. However, if i am the "sinner" by getting the BC, why would he care about my salvation? It would be my sin, not his. where is the problem really?

wants2laugh wrote:

exactly HOW is this anti-religious? What it is doing is making sure BC is available to those who WANT it. If someone does not believe in BC, then they do not have to get it. I dont understand... truly i dont. If an employer is christian and believes it is wrong, then he should not prescribe to BC. However, if i am the "sinner" by getting the BC, why would he care about my salvation? It would be my sin, not his. where is the problem really?

It is gonna mandate that religious institutions be forced to provide birth control in their health plans for their employees, which may violate their religious liberty. It's essentially forcing Church institutions to do things to violate their teachings. It's another in a long line of recent decisions aimed at taking away religious liberty.

BC is available to those who want it. And if you want it, you don't have a right to have somebody else pay for it, especially if that somebody else has a moral opposition to it.

This isn't about what you do. BC has been available for years. It's not the existance of BC that takes away religious freedom; it's the mandate that all employers, including religious institutions, be forced to cover abortifacients and contraception that is a violation of religious liberty. It's religious bigotry plain and simple, only this kind of bigotry is acceptable in a society with backwards morals. This is really frightening to me cause it really signals that this administration is at war with religion, and in particularly with Catholicism.