+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Is this country REALLY in a debate over BIRTH CONTROL???? (/showthread.php?tid=131717)
Re: Is this country REALLY in a debate over BIRTH CONTROL???? - Lux Interior - 02-11-2012
Mac-A-Matic wrote: If that is the case, why are contraceptives deemed a necessary provision of health insurance?
What's cheaper, contraceptives or healthcare for a child from conception until 24 years? If you're an insurance bean counter, which do you want to pay for?
Re: Is this country REALLY in a debate over BIRTH CONTROL???? - Grace62 - 02-11-2012
When it's not your body that can get pregnant, I guess I can see why men would be confused over why contraception is a very important part of health care for women. Right now the best birth control bills (the ones with the fewest side effects) run $100 a month, not including the check-ups required to get them. Before health care reform, about half of insurance companies provided no coverage for contraception, though of course nearly all of them cover ED drugs like Viagra.
The Obama accommodation for religious organizations is not that women pay for contraception, it's that the insurance companies cover it at no cost to the employer.
Access to contraception with no co-pay was one of the changes to health policy recommended by the Institute of Medicine. So that is part of the health care reform law. Therefore it will not be legal for any insurance company or employer to either deny women coverage, or require them to pay co-pays for contraception.