A HUGE win for women, no?

[MH1]

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Washington-Watch/27834

Free Birth Control Part of ACA Implementation
By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: August 01, 2011


WASHINGTON -- The Department of Health and Human Services announced Monday it will require health insurance plans to offer a variety of preventive health measures for women at no charge -- including birth control and HPV screenings -- as part of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The measures were developed by the Institute of Medicine and also include coverage for well woman visits, sexually transmitted infection counseling, HIV screening and counseling, screening for gestational diabetes, breast-feeding support, and screening for domestic violence -- all without charging a copay, coinsurance, or a deductible.

...

I'll admit I don't spend as much time here as I used to .... and I'm scanning quickly so maybe I missed it ...but I was looking for this at the top of the Greatest page and didn't see it.

I dunno about you all, but to me this answers "why we still vote for Democrats even though some days they suck so much." Because YOU KNOW that this would not happen under a republican administration. And the next republican administration will do its best to reverse it.

Well regardless of it's meaning in the wider political scheme, I think this is a BIG F*N' DEAL and I hope those who agree with me will help unbury it from the debt ceiling charade/kabuki/debacle we've just witnessed.

THIS IS SOMETHING TO CELEBRATE.

(or have I missed something?)

(edited to remove "it's" stray apostrophe)

[drm604]

1. K&R

Despite the disappointments there ARE differences between the parties.

[CarmanK]

2. That and the 50 mpg for autos by 2025. OBAMA' successes!

[InvisibleTouch]

3. Something to celebrate, indeed! n/t

[Chorophyll]

4. Yes! And we sure as hell needed some good news. Thanks! nt

[Zebedeo]

5. All those goods and services

will still have to be paid for. They just won't be paid for by the people who are consuming them. This just means increased health insurance premiums for everyone. No such thing as a free lunch.

[MH1]

6. Maybe

the insurance co.'s will make the men start paying for their Viagra.

[Arugula Latte]

11. +1

[Lance_Boyle]

19. show me even one insurance plan that covers any ED drug

that does not also cover birth control. You are snarking at a nonexistent red herring.

The OP is right - this is a *win* for women. At the expense of everyone who pays insurance premiums.

[Lyric]

30. This is basic healthcare for women.

That's just a fact of the world we live in. You might as well say that approval for public schools is a "win" for children, at the expense of people who pay taxes. The good FAR outweighs the price.

[Pithlet]

33. That's how insurance works.

If everyone got to pick and choose and eliminate the stuff they don't need, then sure, everyone's premiums would go way down, but then nothing would be covered. That's pretty stupid.

[Llewlladdwr]

35. Why can't I just get the coverage I need?

I honestly don't need BC coverage. Why shouldn't I be able to get coverage that doesn't include it? Especially if it saves me on premiums.

[Pithlet]

40. Why should I have to pay for coverage for prostate cancer? I don't have a prostate! Huh?

Answer me that. Or how about really rare diseases. I say knock off the coverage for that. I'll take my chances. I'll gamble.
You have to pay the coverage now because our society has deemed it's a benefit for everyone. Oh well.

[EOTE]

9. This is one thing which should certainly have universal coverage.

Yes, everyone will be paying for it now, but that means that women who would have been straining to afford it will now not need to worry about it. It also means that far fewer children will be born to parents who aren't ready for them. This is unequivocally a good thing.

[Zebedeo]

24. I acknowledge your point,

and it makes a certain amount of sense. However, that logic could be applied to other areas, leading to some results that I doubt most Americans would like.

What about requiring health insurance plans to provide free bicycles for everyone? That would mean that people who would have been straining to afford them would not need to worry about it. It would also mean that far more people would use bicycles for transportation. An unequivocally good thing. Premiums, of course, would go up to pay for all the bicycles.

What about requiring health insurance plans to provide free home gyms for everyone? That would mean that people who would have been straining to afford them would not need to worry about it. It would also mean that far more people would exercise and stay in good shape. An unequivocally good thing. Premiums, of course, would go up to pay for all the home gyms.

What about requiring health insurance plans to provide free health club memberships for everyone? That would mean that people who would have been straining to afford them would not need to worry about it. It would also mean that far more people would exercise and stay in good shape. An unequivocally good thing. Premiums, of course, would go up to pay for all the health club memberships.

What about requiring health insurance plans to provide free helmets for everyone who rides a motorcycle? That would mean that people who would have been straining to afford them would not need to worry about it. It would also mean fewer head injuries from motorcycle accidents. An unequivocally good thing. Premiums, of course, would go up to pay for all the helmets.

I could go on and on. Following this logic, you eventually have the collective public paying for everyone's individual consumption of goods and services. To me, that is not a utopia - it represents a curtailment of personal freedom and personal responsibility.

[Pithlet]

26. That's some funny logic.

Logic that equates birth control to riding bicycles and going to the gym.

[EOTE]

28. Well, this is an issue that effects everyone positively.

I don't see how anyone could complain about less children being born to families that can't afford them (well, I can, but they're idiots) .

Yes, there is a line that needs to be walked, but there are certain things that just make complete sense, this is one of them. Some of your other examples, such as providing free bicycles, I think would actually be a good idea. Not to be provided by health insurance plans, but by the government for people without the means to afford them, but that's another issue altogether.

This is what government does. Government is here for the collective good of the people. No one's rights are being trampled on because of this. Society will be better off and NO ONE will be worse off. No one's freedoms will be curtailed. This will end up saving ridiculous sums of money in the end run. If there's anything I want the government doing, it's things like this.

[MH1]

31. I'd settle for cities encouraging bike rental/sharing programs like they have in Paris.

Not quite the same as what the poster suggested but would sure help a lot.

Oh, and bike lanes and enforcement of safety measures to protect cyclists.

Do all that and the need for free bikes would go way down.

[EOTE]

42. That sounds good to me.

I certainly don't know how anything bad could come from decreasing the number of cars on the road while increasing the amount of exercise Americans get as well as the change in their pockets.

But something like that would almost have to be done by accident, here. Americans can't seem to take lessons from the Europeans.

[lunatica]

32. I guess you'd be happier if women got abortions rather than birth control

because in your view it will drive up the cost of insurance. As a matter of fact lets drop older people and their endless issues of ageing illnesses like arthritis and dementia because we all know it drives health insurance up. Then there's the handicapped who are always needing medical attention. Crap! If it were for all those people your health insurance payments would be so small!

[Warren DeMontague]

44. No, that individual would only be 'happy' if the fucking would stop.

For the love of God, please, just stop all the fucking. :eyes:

[Zebedeo]

48. No

I don't know how you get that from anything I posted. Please re-read my posts and point out where I said, implied or hinted anything about wanting to discourage people from having sex. It just isn't there. You are misrepresenting my position.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Contraceptives are almost pure profit for drug companies. Cheap to make, safe to use.

I'm sorry, but anyone who is even remotely interested in making them harder or more expensive for everyday people to obtain is doing so out of a religious agenda.

Really, you should just own up to it, instead of pretending this is about something else.

[Zebedeo]

55. You obviously have issues.

My points had nothing whatsoever to do with sex or religion. I just pointed out that when the government requires that all insurance policies include something for free, it is not really free. Someone still has to pay for it. In this case, it is the people paying policy premiums.

From that, you conclude that I, driven by religious fervor, am trying to "make contraceptives harder for everyday people to obtain" because I want people to stop having so much sex. Brother, you have issues big time. Maybe you didn't get enough sex. Maybe you got too much. I don't know and I don't care. It has absolutely zero to do with what I am talking about.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Bullshit.

To thine own self be true, Jack. You know exactly what your motives are, here.

[Posteritatis]

34. *facepalm*

Gotta love responses that use the phrase "by that logic" and walk right into reductio ad absurdum.

[Zebedeo]

51. The poster in post #28

agreed with the free bicycles example. So what you consider absurd, others believe is a good idea, it appears.

But anyway, I was just exploring the implications of the line of reasoning used by the poster in his/her support of the policy of requiring health insurance policies to provide certain goods and services at no cost to the consumer, and with all cost being borne by those paying premiums.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Nope. But contraceptives, absolutely.

And the people with whose religion implores them to try to stop other people from screwing are just going to have to fucking lump it and deal.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Do you agree that there is a constitutional right to privacy as per Griswold v. Connecticut?

Just curious.

[Zebedeo]

56. The issue that I am posting about

has nothing whatsoever to do with privacy or constitutional rights. I am just saying that what looks like a "freebie" is actually still costing money. It is just being charged to other people who are not consuming the goods and services.

On edit: What is your opinion regarding Kelo v. City of New London? It has just as much relevance to the topic at hand as Griswold v. Connecticut?

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Not gonna answer the question, huh?

Shocking.

[Arugula Latte]

10. Unplanned pregnancies run up rates more. nt

[MH1]

22. +1 ... and don't miss the domestic violence part,

treating beat up women probably costs more, too.

[Lars39]

21. Yeah, it's not like it's going to eat into the ins co's profits, now is it.

Priorities are skewed.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Why don't you just admit, anything that might mean more fucking, you're against.

That's what this is really about. If this were, say, anti-cholesterol medication, you wouldn't be having a whiny tantrum. This is because you want to tell other people to keep their pants on.

[Zebedeo]

49. How do you figure that?

I have never posted any such thing. Not even close. What are you talking about? Do you have me confused with another poster?

[Warren DeMontague]

53. No

I know exactly where you're coming from.

[Lisa0825]

59. Birth control and early detection of cancer are cheaper than

pregnancy and later stage cancer treatments.

[Shandris]

60. Why is it that every time someone types the phrase 'goods and services' you can...

...virtually GUARANTEE that the rest of their post is going to be right-wing-style drivel?

One step closer to Universal, and good on it. Crawl back in your hole, unless you're going to start preaching about Cadillac Welfare Moms or something.

[Zebedeo]

63. If you are so econonically ignorant

as to not understand what goods and services are, I suggest you look up their meanings. Goods would include contraceptive medications. Services would include well woman exams. Neither is "free." Someone still has to pay for them. In this case, it is the policyholders who pay premiums.

[Guilded Lilly]

7. Yessss. This news got a big WOOO HOOO from me :)

[lapislzi]

8. Not to piss in the manger or anything, but...

nice to know that the U.S. has been dragged kicking and screaming into the second half of the twentieth century. These hard-won provisions are a mainstay of women's health care in the remainder of the developed world.

While I am pleased that this has finally come to pass, it's hardly cause to celebrate.

[ZombieHorde]

13. At this point, I celebrate all progress. nt

[ZombieHorde]

12. It's a huge win for anyone who doesn't believe in Roman Catholic propaganda.

Women will have better access to contraceptives and preventative care.

Fewer accidental pregnancies means the population will grow slightly slower. Every little bit helps.

Fewer accidental pregnancies means less abortions.

Fewer accidental pregnancies means less people need social benefits, such as medicaid.

[Starry Messenger]

14. Yes, and I'm trying to be glad not snarky about it.

Although the thought did occur to me that since there aren't going to be enough jobs in the future, they are finally taking BC seriously. OK, I'll shut up now.

[Fearless]

15. Celebrate IF you have insurance. If not, like most people who need free BC, you're out of luck.

[JoePhilly]

23. No positive event can ever go uncountered.

At least not on DU.

[MH1]

29. True, but ACA is supposed to expand insurance coverage as well

for example by subsidizing those who can't otherwise afford it.

I'm not saying that I like the health care bill as it passed - I'm for single-payer. But there are some positives and this is one.

Also, it will decrease unplanned pregnancies because many people who can allegedly 'afford it' now, either really can't, or just don't like spending $30 a month or so for it. I think decreasing unplanned pregnancies indirectly benefits us all.

[KittyWampus]

45. You sound like an anti-union fool attacking union members for getting benefits.

[ceile]

16. K&R!

[AndyTiedye]

17. K/R

[politicasista]

18. Kick

:kick: :hi:

[RainDog]

20. k and fucking r n/t

[proud patriot]

25. Sure to piss the Crispies off .. Wheeeeeeeeee

I say this as a woman who doesn't have to worry about it anymore but I'm so happy
Woman won't be charged for being a woman anymore . excellent!

[loyalsister]

27. Right on!

K&R

[fishwax]

36. k/r

:kick:

[Contrary1]

37. "Women" - Bachmann, Palin, and all the other female neanderthals who still walk among us. n/t

[Scurrilous]

39. Good news.

:thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

41. Yes!

[kickysnana]

46. A huge win for families.

Despite the Sunday School rosy glasses idea that an unwanted pregnancy enhances lives most of the time it does not and the horror stories keep coming of unwanted children's plights.

Every child a wanted child.

[11 Bravo]

47. I see it as a victory for both women AND men.

[nemo137]

50. "My liberation as a man is tied in to your liberation as a woman"

The sooner more guys realize that the patriarchy hurts men, too, the better.

[Snoutport]

61. k & r

[Liberal_in_LA]

62. yes