[carolprudm]

Really, WHO in the United States doesn't have access to BC if they'd like?? If you are THAT money challenged (poor), use some common sense and don't engage in ANY sort of activity where you could bring a child into the world...and then want someone else to pay for the abortion. I have known women to go to the Health Dept in whatever town and got BC and I'm guessing for really cheap or free, everything else was.

Not to be too personal in my life, I have never, ever used any sort of BC and it's not because of religion. I never had any unplanned pregnancies either. Matter of fact, it never dawned on me to bring the whole of the US into my life demanding others pay for my actions. So, the health care thing is a non-starter in my book.

But, hey, the world has changed since I was younger...

FWIW BCP's are used to treat other conditions such as painful periods.

[goneriding24]

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/...-birth-control

Some of it is pretty cheap, but can run as high as $600 a year.

Sorry, I have to run and take care of my business and will read the article later but if it can run as high as $600, then I say look for cheaper alternatives. What do condoms run?? I really don't know. I'm thinking the $600 is the over the moon highest and most places are WAY cheaper.

[Coyoteco]

Have to say I'm finding this thread more shocking than the ones related to abortion/adoption. It is mind-boggling that some posters don't see access to birth control as an integral part of women's health.

First question on my flow chart:

Is it medical: Abortion: yes Birth control: no

Of course birth control pills that are used to *treat* medical conditions are medical.

There is a difference between medical care and health care.

[RainyDayRide]

So is brushing my teeth, but I don't expect my insurance to pay for my toothpaste.

what about the cost of an IUD?

or birth control implant?

diaphragm fitting?

or sterilization procedures?

semi-annual teeth cleaning?

[RainyDayRide]

There is a difference between medical care and health care.

Could you explain that a bit more?

[Coyoteco]

"RainyDayRide;6538599]what about the cost of an IUD?"

or birth control implant? health

diaphragm fitting? health

or sterilization procedures? medical

semi-annual teeth cleaning health

[RainyDayRide]

semi-annual teeth cleaning health

yet that is typically covered as preventative treatment under most - if not all - dental plans.

[Coyoteco]

The purpose of medical insurance it to enable people to get medical care for illnesses that can come up. This was generally when people got sick and needed care that was too expensive. It was a safety net for people to ensure they could get care.

At some point, the idea of insuring against extraordinary (out of the ordinary) or unavoidable medical costs, started to become paying for health care costs such as dental cleaning or things that weren't "medical" or "unexpected".

When that happened, the costs of those things skyrocketed. My well-baby checkups for one of my kids went from about $30 to $250 overnight because of the insurance. (though, I do confess to being absolutely astounded that my well-baby checkups were cheaper than my well puppy visits - but they were when I had an expensive vet.)

Another problem when the two are mixed up and intertwined
is that the money for serious illness will dry up and more money will be spent on "health care" and the "medical care" will suffer. My good friend was in an HMO. She was very healthy and health conscious. She had all the freebies from the HMO. She thought they were great. Everything was covered. But then she got cancer. They cut her off very soon, and she died very quickly.

[Coyoteco]

yet that is typically covered as preventative treatment under most - if not all - dental plans.

I know that it is. What is your point in that, just so I understand what you are saying.

[RainyDayRide]

The purpose of medical insurance it to enable people to get medical care for illnesses that can come up. This was generally when people got sick and needed care that was too expensive. It was a safety net for people to ensure they could get care.

At some point, the idea of insuring against extraordinary (out of the ordinary) or unavoidable medical costs, started to become paying for health care costs such as dental cleaning or things that weren't "medical" or "unexpected".

I agree - it has distorted costs.

There is the question of how to cover preventative treatments or tests, the type that can spot problems before they escalate into really expensive situations... pap smears, colonoscopies, etc... some of which are beyond some peoples' means to obtain?

or vaccinations, which, while predictable, benefit the community as well as the individual?

[RainyDayRide]

I know that it is. What is your point in that, just so I understand what you are saying.

this was re the coverage of regular teeth cleaning.. I assume the insurance providers figured it was cheaper in the long run to get people into the chair regularly...perhaps identify the need for small fillings rather than crowns, reduce gum disease, etc.

[Coyoteco]

I agree - it has distorted costs.

There is the question of how to cover preventative treatments or tests, the type that can spot problems before they escalate into really expensive situations... pap smears, colonoscopies, etc... some of which are beyond some peoples' means to obtain?

or vaccinations, which, while predictable, benefit the community as well as the individual?

Yeah, there can be a dialogue about these, but the dialogue has to recognize the fundamental reason for health insurance - catastrophic illness - and it doesn't.

In my state there is an annual "9 news health fare". It is he best thing ever. Very, very cheap for things that you actually pay for , but for things like pap smears, breast exams, prostate exams are free. Blood work is the only thing I can think of that isn't free. They have a website that shows all the services. It's been going on for many years now.

Many things would not be beyond people's means if not for the insurance that has distorted costs.

[Coyoteco]

this was re the coverage of regular teeth cleaning.. I assume the insurance providers figured it was cheaper in the long run to get people into the chair regularly...perhaps identify the need for small fillings rather than crowns, reduce gum disease, etc.

But, isn't dental insurance relatively quite expensive? Most dental plans limit actual treatment to about $1500 per year dont' they? What does that do to the availability of that dental care to people who don't have dental insurance?

[Coyoteco]

I agree - it has distorted costs.

There is the question of how to cover preventative treatments or tests, the type that can spot problems before they escalate into really expensive situations... pap smears, colonoscopies, etc... some of which are beyond some peoples' means to obtain?

or vaccinations, which, while predictable, benefit the community as well as the individual?

Sorry, I missed the vaccination part of this. A lot of things that an individual is responsible for benefits the community, but it's still a personal expense. My having a working lawnmower benfits the community, but it's a personal expense.

[RainyDayRide]

But, isn't dental insurance relatively quite expensive? Most dental plans limit actual treatment to about $1500 per year dont' they? What does that do to the availability of that dental care to people who don't have dental insurance?

Yup, I dropped mine years ago. And I'm one of the lucky ones who need three cleanings a year no matter how much I floss and brush.

[BlueEyedSorrel]

A big part of Sandra Fluke's original speech that gets overlooked is the example of a woman with an ovarian cyst who needed OCPs to treat it, and could not get them at her Catholic college. The cyst grew until it ruptured, requiring (expensive, likely) emergency treatment.

Oral contraceptive pills are DRUGS. Like many drugs, they can be used for a variety of purposes, only one of which is contraception. Like many drugs, it is possible to use one drug for multiple issues--ie both to lessen heavy periods AND for birth control. Being sexually active does not negate one's need to have a medical problem treated.

The ovaries and uterus are organs, and like any other organ system, they can have things go wrong with them. Women with dysfunctional bleeding, severe cramps, endometriosis, irregular cycles, ovarian cysts, polycystic ovarian syndrome etc are TREATED with OCPs, both to improve quality of life and prevent complications of NOT treating (ie anemia from heavy bleeding). Furthermore, the uterus can be an "innocent bystander" of other illnesses. Women with bleeding or platelet disorders can have severe menstrual bleeding SECONDARY to their primary blood disorder. Women on chemotherapy can get low platelets and have heavy bleeding, even if their cycles were "normal" before. OCPs are an option for these "secondary" causes of bleeding as well.

Sorry to rant here, but I'm an MD with a particular career interest in blood disorders. In women, anemia and bleeding disorders are often intimately connected with uterine bleeding. The idea that I or my patients should have to jump through hoops to get medically indicated treatment because of someone's religious beliefs on how women's bodies work just irks me.

BES

[jr]

Sorry, but I think that woman is a leech on society. She sought out the opportunity to be the front person for this debate and gets famous for not being responsible enough to skip a couple Starbucks runs a week to pay for her own sex life.

There is no issue with access to birth control. This issue is just about more freebies. Taxpayers, employers etc should not be forced to include birth control in health plans. I don't have an issue if they want to, but they shouldnt be forced to.

President Obama proved to me in this debate that he either1) doesn't understand business or2) has flexible ethics, or possibly both. The "compromise" he offered the church was ridiculous. Members of church sponsored health plans get birth control but the church doesn't pay for it? Really? It may not be a line item in the Diocese premium notice, but trust me, the insurance company is getting paid for it, hidden somewhere else. So the church should then turn their backs on their beliefs, because they've been given a fig leaf to cover the obvious?

I'm actually not a conservative, but this whole thing showed me that our Pres is naive at best, and may have flexible ethics ....if he truly thinks the cardinal should give a wink and a nod to a deeply held conviction, what does that mean about his own?

And now, let the Obama supporters have at me....I'm actually an independent with a voting history that includes both parties.

[threedogpack]

Speak it BES! This, all of it.

[jr]

One other thing, I have no issue when bc pills etc are used to treat medical disorders. Thats legitimate medical care. But recreational sex is a lifestyle choice and no ones responsibility but your own.

[AZ Native]

We just passed 16 TRILLION on the debt clock and the dems have the gall to bring this woman out to beg for more freebies at the taxpayers expense. Sheesh. What does the left not understand about BROKE??

Nice posts JR. I refuse to get started on the moral and religious freedom issues here as it just makes me livid. Serenity Now .