General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt would cost me $22,000 to prevent pregnancy from now until menopause. Cheap my ass.
?@AmandaMarcotte
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/calculator-birth-control-expensive-really-cost Without insurance, it would cost me $22,000 to prevent pregnancy from now until menopause. Cheap my ass.
The Angry BoxerMonaEdiebelleCarolyn OwnbeyfrequentfeministLisa Melanie A. Hecate DemetersdatteMockingbird
11:52 AM - 4 Jul 2014
https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/485134001951088641
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/calculator-birth-control-expensive-really-cost
elleng
(131,202 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)There's a wide world of sex out there that doesn't involve sticking penises in vaginas. And it all disgusts the 'aspirin between your knees' types just as much as birth control.
Hobby Lobby, crafting sodomites since 2014.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)The definition's in Ezekiel, I think. Chapter 9, but I could be wrong.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)it seems to cover anal or oral intercourse.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Profound for the irony-impaired.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I would imagine a few over a life time for emergencies would be needed, but 22,000 dollars worth? That is quite a bit of money. The daily pill is covered so that would not be included in the 22,000.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)and even to office visits where birth control options are discussed.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)The companies are breaking the law and the citizens of the companies need to get back to the Supreme Court. The Court never envisioned the pill being banned by companies, just the abortion bills (4 of them).....everything else was passed by the Court and Holly Lobby is continuing to provide birth control to it's employees.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)The four methods HL objects to are not "abortion pills". They're the two kinds of IUD on the US market (which are the most effective reversible methods and are the best option for women who can not use hormonal contraceptives) and two kinds of emergency contraceptive. None of them are abortion pills.
The Supremes went back the day after the ruling and informed a lower court to reconsider a ruling against a company that objects to all contraception in light of the HL decision. Other lower courts are making rulings in favor of organizations that reject all birth control based on the Hobby Lobby ruling.
Hobby Lobby's employees earned their health care benefits with their labor and Hobby Lobby gains a tax break for providing a health care plan as part of their compensation package. They want the tax break without meeting the baseline for a plan that qualifies.
Igel
(35,374 posts)In other words, changing meanings as you go. That feels good, and manipulates those who aren't gifted with slightly above-average educated-speaker linguistic competence, but that's about all. Sound and fury, but what, exactly, it means is a bit tricky to figure out ... Because it may not mean anything coherent.
The basis of the decision was that Plan B and IUDs are allegedly abortifacients. And while there's been some research that says they may not be, there's wiggle room there. Now they aren't, now they might be. Depends how you define "abortifacient", to be honest--and using a bit of jargon to impose a definition unilaterally on a rather large speech community is yet more linguistic manipulation. We typically come up with that kind of thing by community consensus and let different communities, including non expert communities, have their own definitions. As long as everybody's clear what definition's being used, no hurt, no foul. SCOTUS uses an elaborated code, which is to say, it's fairly explicit.
In any event, even if the companies do *not* cover any form of birth control whatsoever, this was already envisaged for religious non-profits and a way worked out to ensure coverage. It's just that the *administrative* (not legislated) way that somebody with a different opinion firmly believed would be a good compromise with somebody else's belief system is insufficient and needs revising. Meaning some bureaucrat will revise it. Hard to accept that the bureaucrat failed to adequately understand all points of view before deciding on the perfect solution, but there you have it. It's why bureaucrats really need a good dose of humility and empathy on a regular basis. Compromises are best discussed with the other side and not assumed then imposed.
There's nothing to prevent the same revised kludge from being applied to the for-profit companies that the SCOTUS decision applies to. It just as to be initiated by the employee instead of employer-initiated. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a budget-buster, either.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Here in the real world pregnancy is defined as beginning with implantation. Any debatable, increasingly unlikely, nearly impossible to test for effect reducing the chances of implantation after ovulation would still not be an abortion as defined by the medical profession, as pregnancy begins at implantation.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)'pregnancy' as the basis for their objection. For them the problem they see is ending a 'conceptin'.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)At issue is not whether HL "believes" that those forms of contraception are abortificants--which they aren't.
THE POINT IS THAT AN EMPLOYER IS FORCING THEIR RELIGION ONTO THEIR EMPLOYEES.
This has put the rights of the employer, and in this case, a corporation, over the rights of the employeee. What an employee does with their earned benefit is nobody's damned business. That is entirely the problem. Not birth control, not other forms of treatment that religions may object to. Will Muslim employers be able to withhold treatment for alcohol overdose? What about thyroid medications that keep people out of myxedema comas? It doesn't matter. This ruling is an abomination and has revoked the rights of the individual. That is what you are defending.
kiva
(4,373 posts)Your agenda is showing.
Yeah sure. Perhaps yours is.
kiva
(4,373 posts)it includes that safe and legal abortions are available to women. Yours doesn't appear to be that...well, liberal.
Edited to add: And that medication such as morning after pills remain accessible to women.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)They are two entirely different things.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)I'm assuming she's talking about the daily pill too, not Plan B. I've seen a lot of people throwing around $9 and $10/mo, but not every woman is on the same medication. My generic prescription would cost $35/mo. *without* insurance, and if I'd been on it since I was 18, the total so far would be over $16,000. If the author in the op is using a more expensive low dose pill as my oldest was for a while (with insurance and a co-pay of $22/mo.), then yes, $22,000 is believable.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)it's for emergencies, not post fuc every time.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)historylovr
(1,557 posts)There's nothing said that even implies that she's talking about Plan B. Nothing. There's more than one way to prevent a pregnancy, but you guys have latched onto that for some reason. If you go to the article and use the calculator therein, it shows a variety of methods of non-emergency contraception.
msongs
(67,462 posts)canoeist52
(2,282 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)To attain that number. Very few people on the planet have sex every day for 25 years.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Maybe in the first couple of years but long term not bloody likely.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Skittles
(153,226 posts)no indeed
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Skittles
(153,226 posts)the stats would be different if it was fun
phylny
(8,390 posts)Husband and I had sex once or twice a day for most of our marriage, until prostate surgery changed things. It was a helluva lot of fun.
IronLionZion
(45,563 posts)And personally, I think its worth saving up to get female condoms or at least polyisoprene instead of the cheap latex ones.
And good sessions will include activities that could not possibly result in pregnancy!
jmowreader
(50,567 posts)...nine thousand rubbers over 25 years represents an inordinate amount of fucking.
kath
(10,565 posts)Failure rate is quite high, should be used with an additional method, ie spermicidal foam, cream, gel, sponge.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)And lubricants which aren't damaging to a woman's health are not cheap.
I swear, I had no idea before this week how many dudes were absolutely pig ignorant about basic sex ed stuff.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)that is why a layered defense should be used. And all should be covered by insurance.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Ihave not had to deal with that issue since 1972, and have no clue as to current costs for The Pill.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Completely made up...
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Saying "birth control is $9/mo" because one pill is that cheap is like saying "diabetes care is $4/mo" because some people only need metformin and it's $4 at WalMart.
You also need to factor in that the doctor's visit to get that prescription is $100 or more and HL and other companies with similar objections don't want to pay for any visit that includes a birth control consult.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I don't agree with the hobby Lobby decision even a little bit but the math on that wasn't even close at $9 a month.
Also as a guy I am fine with getting snipped and now days I hear it is even reversible. If I was younger I would likely do it just for the peace of mind.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)IUDs are about $500 (mirena, last 5 years) or $750 (paraguard, 12 years) and are the most effective reversible method- shifting more women to them is a big part of the falling abortion/unintended pregnancy rate.
Vasectomies are not reliably reversible. Reversal attempts are also extraordinarily expensive. A reversible method (RISUG) which involves a glue plug in the vas is under investigation, but is not yet approved or widely available.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)At least, the last time I had to pay for them without insurance. That was a few years ago.
(I'm male, and I wasn't there when her options were discussed with her Doctor.)
Only some vasectomies are reversible. You have to ask for a reversible one when you "get snipped". The big problem with the reversible version is the cut ends are much closer together, and sometimes they grow back together on their own. Additionally, reversing doesn't always work.
It's usually a much better idea to be sure you're done having kids, and get the non-reversible version.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)without insurance. That's the generic version - the brand name was much more. I can't use the most common type of BC pills for numerous reasons...I need a 'special' kind. And that costs significantly more.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Some women can't use it and if they have to use one of the higher priced meds and don't have
a discount pharmacy near them their cost can be much higher. It's a 'ymmv' issue.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Sorry I have no experience with the cost of the pill or other forms of birth control.
The hobby Lobby ruling is garbage on many levels but when someone said the pill was 9 per month that number didn't work at all for the amount claimed from the article.
Thanks for throwing some more light on the costs.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)And some of them even have a small amount of estrogen in the "withdrawal" pills to forestall the migraine/mood swings from hell some women experience on the inactive pills. I'm grateful that my daughter has CHIP so the pills are free. Believe me, before that it was like The Exorcist around here.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)An IUD is about $700, but lasts for years.
Costs vary wildly depending on which method meets your needs/ causes you the least side effects.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Some can use the really cheap generic mentioned in another post for $9/mo. Most formulations are between $30/mo and $100/mo.
MANative
(4,112 posts)with insurance covering about 60% of the cost. $36x 12x25 years is $10,800. That's a decent downpayment on a car, or a half a year of mortgage payments. Not a tiny amount of money.
Response to kpete (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
historylovr
(1,557 posts)I guess that's what happens when Stupid and Hateful mate.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Any DUer who is both a climate change denier and supports the supreme court's ruling needs to stop pretending they belong on DU.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)But then not. That "Big Tent" has obviously gotten way too big.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Stealth trolling is the name of the game.
McDiggy
(150 posts)...is why people with life sustaining medications have to pay copays. You think $15k or so over 30 years is a lot? Try having a congenital heart defect.
Fighting over not having to pay copays for just birth control seems like missing the forest for the trees to me.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)I live in a country that has single-payer, and I refuse to move back to the USA until the US adopts single-payer healthcare system.
However, maybe you don't really understand how much THIS particular thing really pisses women off. Viagra to get dicks hard for sex is covered by insurance, no problem. But birth control pills that women take in order to not have unwanted pregnancies (or also for well established medical reasons not related to pregnancy) is seen as slutty! The outrageous double standard is what pisses women off, royally! It is fucking beyond ridiculous, and it also sets a dangerous precedent.
Someone else suggested that this recent S.C. ruling is just another way to distract the people from the larger picture of the terrible things that are going on, and I can resonate with that... it is very likely.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)It's about a corporation forcing their religion on their employees. Very shortly, it won't just be birth control, it will be other things. It started with 4 forms of contraception for HL and with two days it was all of them for Wheaton. This is a firestorm that hasn't even begun to burn.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But I also have the additional cost of controlling my own fertility, a cost that you won't have to share.
The calculator to which she links, is really fucked up. Out of curiosity, I typed in 22 for a current age and birth control pill as a preferred choice. The calculator indicates that the it would cost $55,000 over a lifetime or $152 a month, or $9722 with insurance.
a) the fact that cost is baked into medical insurance premiums doesn't make it free.
b) ACA compliant policies include the pill. Thus the out of pocket costs are zero for women with insurance.
The ACA requires men and women of the same age pay the same premium, and that women are entitled to contraception but men are not. This means that that her $55,000 lifetime cost is split, while his lifetime cost (is Mother Jones curious what that cost might be?) is not.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)It has been pointed out time and again that males also require specific healthcare that women don't. This is just bullshit. And if you don't want to "pay" for contraception wait till you have to "pay" for a pregnancy. The idea that contraception coverage adds to the overall cost of healthcare is utter, RW bullshit. ONE visit to the emergency room for a heart attack is that much. The cost of medical treatment is through the roof and you think contraception is the problem? FFS.
Do you think that racially inherent diseases should not be covered because you're not of African or Semitic or Asian descent? Should we cut off people with a history of mental illness or cancer or diabetes because that doesn't affect you? Not pay for breast or prostate cancer because that's gender specific? Why are you so worried about what other people might be getting that you aren't?
Contraception is an EXCELLENT investment. It makes sure that people and especially women are healthy. It means they can plan their pregnancies and have the number of children they can financially support (I bet you hate paying for social services for somebody else's kid too). It cost far less than a single pregnancy over a lifetime, and that is a healthy one without a complication. And it is a person's RIGHT who pays for healthcare. For young, healthy women that is the only medicine they use for years. Why should she have to pay for health insurance for the most part she can't use?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)What does that even mean?
In general, I'm supportive of a publicly funded health care system that takes care of people's needs. Please explain to me why men shouldn't have access to contraception, IPV counseling, STD or diabetes testing? They die younger of 14 of the top 15 causes of death and have 30% less spent on their care.
Men are only important to the ACA calculus because it's important to get them in the system so they can pay for the coverage that the author of the OP is complaining about.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)All of these things should be covered. ALL of them. Preventative medicine is an excellent investment. I am not a fan of the ACA for the reason that it locks in insurance companies that make their money denying care. I want single payer so everyone can get the care they need.
I pay over $6k a year for insurance I have not used in over ten years. Now my deductible is so high on my ACA plan, I won't use it at all unless I am in a big accident or have a medical event. But they still get my money every month (I should have put the cash into an account instead). That is the agreement: insurance companies make the gamble that you won't use as much care as you pay for. Now they cheat the system to make sure you can't. They are not keeping their side of the bargain. Just like your car insurance goes up if you ever use it. The game is rigged.
But the argument that women should be denied necessary--yes, *necessary*--medicine is absurd. Just like men should not be denied any of those things you listed. Instead of a lollipop when you walk out of the office, every person should get a case of condoms and whatever else they want. Early screening for diseases should be no cost and easy access in pharmacies and clinics. All other civilized countries have somehow figured it out, why can't we?
The argument that women should be denied care because somehow men don't get enough is the same RW argument against union benefits. I'm screwed so everyone else should be just as screwed. Instead of arguing FOR necessary benefits.
And just so you know, preventing pregnancy benefits both men and women if they don't wish to have a child. The fact that women are willing to alter their hormones to prevent pregnancy should be applauded, not cut down by men who think it's not their problem.