Free Birth Control!

[starfish]

It's about damn time.

[starfish]

And that's wonderful about the breast milk pumps being covered.

[darkplumaged]

Good.

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kwgn-free-birt ... ?track=rss

Oh, FFS. Plan B is to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse. It can take that long for the sperm to reach the egg! But no, an unfertilized egg and some sperm cells are a CHILD to these fundie lunatics. (And never mind that there may not even BE an egg. Women don't always know when they're ovulating and might take Plan B just in case. Also never mind that Plan B does not abort existing pregnancies, just prevents them from occurring. Facts are so ungodly.)

This is a touchy subject for me: I once had to use Plan B due to condom failure. It's unlikely I was even fertile at the time, but I wasn't willing to take any chances. I am grateful that it was available--that all birth control is available.

[apple1]

What about employers like this?

"Catholic Health Partners (CHP) is the largest health system in Ohio and the fourth largest employer in Ohio, and CHP is also one of the largest nonprofit health systems in the United States. With $5.6 billion in assets, CHP employs more than 38,000 associates in more than 100 organizations –- including 31 hospitals –- that meet the healthcare needs of people in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and contiguous states."

This group purchased a local hospital that used to be part of a different hospital system. Immediately upon the switch in ownership, they stopped covering BC for employees. :( This policy affects a lot of people).

(On the other hand, there is a local Catholic hospital that is part of a different/secular system- I know, confusing- and BC is covered for its employees).

I (myself long menopausal) really support the proposal to make BC no-copay. My daughter's insurance "covers" BC, but her "copay" is only about $5 less per month than buying it outright. $50/month copay is a hardship for a lot of people.

[Austin]

What about employers like this?

"Catholic Health Partners (CHP) is the largest health system in Ohio and the fourth largest employer in Ohio, and CHP is also one of the largest nonprofit health systems in the United States. With $5.6 billion in assets, CHP employs more than 38,000 associates in more than 100 organizations –- including 31 hospitals –- that meet the healthcare needs of people in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and contiguous states."

This group purchased a local hospital that used to be part of a different hospital system. Immediately upon the switch in ownership, they stopped covering BC for employees. :( This policy affects a lot of people).

I believe that if any religious organization (whether it be a hospital, shelter, church, whatever) receives any federal money, they should not be able to opt out of providing this coverage for their employees. Your money, you get to do with it what you will no matter how ridiculous. Somebody else's money (American taxpayer), not so much. That's how I think it should be, anyway.

[apple1]

I believe that if any religious organization (whether it be a hospital, shelter, church, whatever) receives any federal money, they should not be able to opt out of providing this coverage for their employees. Your money, you get to do with it what you will no matter how ridiculous. Somebody else's money (American taxpayer), not so much. That's how I think it should be, anyway.

Well, they would go under IMMEDIATELY if they stopped receiving Medicaid or Medicare reimbursements.

[nutella addict]

That commenter is unimaginably ignorant! I hate the myths about Plan B and the pill in general causing "abortions" argghhhh! These people don't know ANYTHING about medicine or the female reproductive system, clearly. I'm on the pill for (incredibly painful and severe, not just cosmetic) acne and completely irregular (and fairly painful and heavy and LONG) periods, after a decade of both. I'm 23 and still with my high school sweetheart, and I am perfectly capable of "keeping my legs closed." I'm definitely NOT a slut, and even if I were I don't see how it would matter or be this commenter's business. When I was living in the states my co-pay was $50/month! When I move back if I'm taken off my dad's insurance it'll cost me the full $75 and I can't afford that. In Canada my co-pay was only about $4/month which was amazing, and of course here in the UK it's free. Additionally, even if some tax money DOES go to funding free birth control, the unplanned pregnancies would be lower so there would be less government money going into related issues like child support, welfare, education for the child, etc. AND the vast majority of Americans would probably be benefitting from having their taxes go into it, as I'm sure a much larger percentage of people use birth control than think like this idiot commenter.

[atheistjd]

First - SO sorry for bringing back this long-dead thread. My bad :oops:

(kind of appropriate for Halloween Eve Eve though, eh? It's alive!! )

However, I know there are lots of smart ladies on here and many lawyers to boot - I am writing a paper on this topic (trying to keep it general for anonymity's sake, but PM me if you're interested in more specs) and am trying to puzzle through ERISA preemption as it relates to states that have a narrower versus broader religious exemption and how these will be affected by the new HHS regs (for example, someone brought up the idea of a large Catholic hospital conglomerate - as best I can tell, HHS regs would NOT exempt those employers because the exemption would be pretty narrow and only cover, essentially, churches themselves, whereas some states currently mandate coverage but exempt those types of religious employers, and some even mandate with NO religious exemption - my question is what happens to those state regulations).

If anyone has any brilliant thoughts or any specialty in this area, I would love to pick your brain... If not, feel free to disregard and let this thread return to the grave :D

I know you're all jealous of my AWESOME weekend :mrgreen:

[atheistjd]

First - SO sorry for bringing back this long-dead thread. My bad :oops:

(kind of appropriate for Halloween Eve Eve though, eh? It's alive!! )

However, I know there are lots of smart ladies on here and many lawyers to boot - I am writing a paper on this topic (trying to keep it general for anonymity's sake, but PM me if you're interested in more specs) and am trying to puzzle through ERISA preemption as it relates to states that have a narrower versus broader religious exemption and how these will be affected by the new HHS regs (for example, someone brought up the idea of a large Catholic hospital conglomerate - as best I can tell, HHS regs would NOT exempt those employers because the exemption would be pretty narrow and only cover, essentially, churches themselves, whereas some states currently mandate coverage but exempt those types of religious employers, and some even mandate with NO religious exemption - my question is what happens to those state regulations).

If anyone has any brilliant thoughts or any specialty in this area, I would love to pick your brain... If not, feel free to disregard and let this thread return to the grave :D

I know you're all jealous of my AWESOME weekend :mrgreen:

This is not to leave out smart *men* and non-lawyers with interest/knowledge... sorry if that's how it came out!! I welcome any and all thoughts on the matter :think:

[emmiedahl]

I am sorry, but the truth is, the actual majority of these girls/women are not sufering from pain and debilitating female problems. It happens to be a very small populace, that do have actual reproductive problems that involve pain and heavy menstration. The reality is the huge population of slu** !! Can't keep their legs closed, and they refuse to use other types of protection and contraceptives. I refuse to have more of my hard earned money , that I have aquired by being responsible for myself Wasted tax dollars. Spent on yet another lazy, American or illegal, uneducated, welfare mooching, over breeding, ska**. The only reason people like this take no repsonsibility for their own finances, is because the more kids they have, the higher their check goes every month. The more kids they can't afford on their own, that are born, the more help they receive. ?? It is a backwards system and it is taking from hard working Americans!

Wait, this person is ranting about people on welfare having more kids as a result of this law? Women on welfare don't have insurance, not in my state at least. We have wait in line at PP where it is already free (thanks to generous donations). We won't be affected by this in the least.

And if you are tired of seeing more and more low income children, supporting birth control seems like a wise choice.

I told my husband and he thinks insurance companies will raise rates again. They have to pay $70 for your pills, so they will charge you $120 more.

[Witsec7]

Sweetness!! Our insurance as of today is covering all my prenatal stuff too. Too bad the BC stuff won't be until next year. I wonder if it covers condoms too?? haha

I live in a town where even the bookstores give out free condoms!!

[Austin]

Most employer provided insurance is re-negotiated annually, so there is some competition (not enough, but some). It's one reason why our insurance provider changes so often. Just in the last two years, as my husband retired, we went from Aetna to Medical Mutual to BC/BS and in January, we will be back to Aetna again.

As long as employers pay any percentage of the premium, it is in their best interests to go with the company with the best plan for the best money for that year (with money being their primary concern, of course). All companies raise their rates from one year to the next, but they still have to compete with a few other companies at least, so I really doubt this concern will be as profound as some expect.

If we use our mail-in pharmacy coverage, I pay a $10 co-pay for a three month supply of the b/c pill. So basically, the insurance company will be providing me with an additional benefit worth $3.33 a month. There are people who pay much more, and no doubt, insurance companies don't like being told what they have to provide (there was a similar furor over mandatated mammograms), but I seriously doubt we're going to see insurance premium rise massively based on the contraceptive coverage requirement alone.

[Mommy22alyns]

I did find it pretty ridiculous when I lived in the US that for a healthy 25-year-old woman my health insurance cost THREE TIMES what my male coworker equivalents had to pay, all because I was 'of childbearing age.' Yet they wouldn't cover birth control. Go figure.

My second child cost $50K to deliver because I had complications that kept me on hospital bedrest for a month, then a C-section, etc. But my insurance didn't want to pay for me to get an IUD afterwards. :doh: