Bill calls for insurance-backed birth control

Insanity.
Where are the chants of “Keep your laws off my body!!!”?

THIS is one of the main reasons why health insurance costs are rising. Government mandates on the private contracts between private parties.

You gotta love Liz Ratzloff, though:
“Birth control can be as much as $65 to $75 a month, and what college woman can afford that?”

Sure. Don’t let your inability to afford birth control, a child, or your resulting abortion to get in the way of a good time. Somebody’s got to pay, and Liz wants to spread the costs of HER birth control to the rest of us.

Hey, Liz.
Where’s the “choice” in that?

Calm down Bob. Some evils are necessarily. This particular evil I can defiantly live with. This can only increase you chance of getting yourself laid Bob, after that you might calm down a second and think like a Human.

You’re right.
Liz Ratzloff sounds like she might give it away. After all, she’s gonna stock up her sock drawer with tons of free birth control.

Isn’t it amazing how many “evils” you can live with? Especially when they’re paid for by OTHER PEOPLE.

Oh Bob, that’s just silly.

Birth control, not only helps with pregnancy prevention, but a variety of other services such as protecting against:

As a college female who was off birth control for 6 months because it was too expensive, and forming an ovarian cyst during that time that cost $10,000 to remove, I don’t know I guess it would of helped for birth control to be cheaper. Is that an evil I should be facing?

And seeing how Viagra is covered by nearly all insurance plans, with it’s only purpose to help erectile disfunction, why isn’t birth control?

First off Bob is probably just bitter because nobody has ever “Given it away” to him.

Second of all, I’m going to go ahead and assume your solution to the problem would be abstinence, something you’re clearly familiar with. Birth control is an essential measure for a majority of women in the world because it is easy and effective.

Without birth control, more people would be getting abortions and nobody wants that. Except for liberals because they LOVE killing babies! (sarcasm, for the slow, yes I mean you Bob)

Furthermore, to attack a college aged girl, that you don’t know, who can’t defend herself and is fighting for a cause she is passionate about, is quite manly.

Which would you rather pay for Bob, a pill that not only sustains or improves the health of women, as well as prevents unwanted pregnancies.

OR

Would you like your tax dollars to go to support all of the children that have been forced into “The System” because they have parents who were too Poor/Stupid to use contraception?

In fact Bob, if there was ever an argument FOR using the pill, it’s your existence.

http://www.thefrogblogg.com/

is not the exception Bob, it’s the rule. Are you used to women who sell it??

Bob, did you actually read the article or did you get so worked up at the thought of someone actually “giving it away” that you just had to get your filthy hands on the keyboard? You’re a pig.

The package was intended to really put forth common sense prevention measures so we could improve women’s health and prevent unintended pregnancies,”

Insurance companies can for sure absorb the inexpensive cost of montly birth control for their subscribers. And lets be honest, they will help absorb the cost by increasing the premiums of said subscribers.

Nevermind the fact that many women take birth control pills for reasons other than birth control. Serious menstrual symptoms like excessive bleeding and incapacitating pain can be helped by birth control. Abstinence isn’t going to fix those problems!

What do you mean Other people? I pay taxes same as everyone (including the people in the article)

Bob is a close minded fool. I get grossed out everytime he uses names like he knows people, like when he says “Liz Ratzloff”
Bob get a vagina, then tell me what’s good.

yeah. spartans rock. get sum.

Only an idiot would talk about taxes when these bills are designed to force insurance companies to foot the bill (and pass it along to its customers). This has NOTHING to do with taxes, but you claim that I haven’t read the article. Brilliant.

Again, it’s mandated coverage like this that increases insurance costs. And the only argument you offer is, “I want it, give it to me!”

“Insurance companies can for sure absorb the inexpensive cost of montly birth control for their subscribers.”

Pure stupidity.
Wasn’t Liz complaining that these costs were too high? Now you’re arguing that they’re “inexpensive”? Which is it?

The idea that the insurance company will “absorb” these costs (like a contraceptive sponge) is laughable. Those costs are passed on to other customers. But, in a world where Mommy and Daddy pick up the tab, I can see where you’d get that idea.

Have you even looked at me My Link BOB? I’m a grown man, married with kid, and I own a business. The only mommy and daddy here are me and my wife. I HAVE health insurance, its Blue Cross Blue shield. Bob, we are talking about American girls who cant afford BC. We are not talking about giving BC away to people in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are talking about making health insurers cover birth control. Something they should be doing anyway, but dont to increase there profit margins. Still if that doesn’t sway you, we can meet up somewhere for a high school style fist fight. (After all I am stupid and you can prolly handle me, right?) And we can settle this like Men, what do ya say.

Bob,
What makes you think that insurance companies should cover other prescriptions, but not birth control? We’re not talking about giving things away for free. We are saying that insured women should receive the same coverage as insured men. Do you think that insurance companies should not cover other prescriptions, simply because it would be cheaper?

You don’t seem too concerned about paying for other men’s Viagra prescriptions… Why is that, Bob?

And here come the internet tough guys.
Didn’t even post a name.

Equal Coverage,
I DON’T think insurance companies should be forced to cover ANY prescriptions. That should be up the the insurance provider and the plan. People already have choices among the types of policies/plans they purchase – high/low deductibles, maximum coverage limits, etc.

Each of those CHOICES is designed to let the consumer review and choose the plan that’s best for them. Imagine that.

And, what makes you think I’m not concerned about insurance companies paying for Viagra? If somebody were attempting to FORCE insurance companies to pay for that, I’d be equally opposed. But, it’s always easier to assume facts not in evidence.

The fact is that there’s always somebody that wants the goobermint to force somebody else to give them something. And, apparently, there’s a lot of “deep pockets” mentality going around, and enough corrupt politicians (both parties) that want their votes.

In the end, insurance companies are mandated into increasing costs, which are passed on to the consumers. Then, when the cost curve of insurance premiums, deductibles and services rise, the same people who caused the increase cry for the government to come save them.

Still unanswered is how people of “choice” want the government out of their bedroom and their bodies (good, I agree), but want the government to step in and eliminate “choice” from others and even force others to pay for their choices.

Bob these women NEED this, its not a supplement, like you seem to think it is

I’m not an internet tough guy, I’ll post my name…I don’t see how “Bob” is really going into detail but ok.

PLEASE! find me, search me out and we can do something about this if you feel it is necessary.

You’re a disgrace.

Great.
Now we’re in the business of determining “need”.

I need food. You gonna buy that for me?
How about some gas money and some cash for whisky?

My own wife takes birth control pills to prevent ovarian cysts (isn’t working). I paid over $6,000 out of pocket last year for my wife’s prescriptions and uncovered procedures.

And yet, you don’t see me clamoring for government intervention or another program. Anybody who knows what’s going on knows that the government is part of the problem.

Every time somebody finds another “need”, it gets added to an already long list of the things that government provides by taking from others.

This isn’t about one drug or one cause. It’s the idea that the the populace can always count upon their government to loot the coffers of others.

Sadly, as proven by the supportive responses to this legislative effort, this dependent mindset is alive and well.

Bob,
This has nothing to do with the government covering expenses. I pay $3600 a year for health insurance for my husband and I, we both go for our yearly recommended check ups and RARELY ever go to the doctor at any other time. The price of birth control for me with insurance is $60 I can get the same prescription without insurance for $65. So assuming two doctors visits at $100 and birth control. My costs would be about $1000. With insurance I am still paying $840

So it would be way cheaper for me to not have insurance but in case of an emergency I keep the coverage.

My insurance company covers “preventative maintenance” drugs at 100% under the logic that it is cheaper for them to provide cholesterol medicine than pay for heart surgery for example. If you use that logic then they should DEFINITELY pay for birth control. With the cost of delivering a baby today being around $25,000 and a maximum yearly out of pocket amount of $ 5,000. They could cover the cost of my birth control for 27 years for the same amount as they would have to pay for me having ONE kid. $60 a month is way cheaper than paying for the medical needs of another whole person especially once you consider my rate is the same for employee 1 or employee 1 or more.

-Marie

Bob, your all alone here. Your brutally wrong, and you cant seem to see logic. Your point may be valid, but you are fighting the wrong battle for that point. Its a Need, and if you can’t see logic, I can go back to the point about a fist fight. If I cant use reason on you, then maybe alittle discipline will show you the proper respect for womens health. Give up Bob, go away and re-think your ideals and battles. Maybe next time you can pick a fight you can win.

Listen. I actually dont think this proposal is a bad idea. That being said, you’re all missing Bob’s argument entirely.

Bob isn’t saying it should or should not be covered, he’s saying the Government shouldn’t be able to FORCE individual companies to provide it. There are choices in insurance companies and if you dont like the one you have because they dont cover this than go find one that does. If customers demand that service, companies will provide it on their own.

While I am open to the idea of mandating this be covered due to other benefits, 95% of you are totally missing Bob’s argument which, quite frankly, is pretty well reasoned, logical, and thought out. I dont agree with his position, but that doesn’t mean its not a logical or defenseable one – it is.

Just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean they’re evil.

Marie,
I never said it was about government picking up the tab. That was another poster who didn’t bother to read the article.

This is about government forcing insurance companies (a private entity) to cover specific things in private contracts.

Insurance companies are particularly good at math. They know exactly what brings in revenue and what generates expenses. The fact that your policy covers PM drugs 100% is proof that they understand what works.

But another plan may not include such things. That plan may be a marginal/minimal expense plan designed to cover that for which insurance was originally developed: low probability/high payout. Under that logic, premiums are much lower (and affordable), deductibles are higher, and the customer pays for high probability/low payout items “out of pocket”.

So, why force a plan that’s structured that way to include items that neither the insurance company nor the customer wants? For that matter, why should the government get involved in this at all?

The only answer I’m hearing is that some people want it, but they want other people to pay for it.

It’s refreshing to see that you’ve done your math, and evaluated YOUR situation. For other people, it will definitely vary.
So, why force them to pay for plan features they do not want, and for which they do not want to pay?

Remember what are talking about here. These girls need this covered, it should be covered. There is no reason other than greed to deny them. Greed is a crappy reason when it comes to health. End of story end of agrument. If they won’t do the right thing and cover it voluntarily, then yes by all means lets use this tool( government) to get them to behave. Ben Campbell

I would be in favor of a law to make it mandatory that all health insurance providers be non-profit in the state of Michigan. Its not as crazy as it sounds (unless your a shareholder) several states that law and it works out nicely.