I don't see that being a problem for Republicans. Congressmen will go along with whatever might make Obama look bad. And they will dispel any appearance of inconsistency by emphasizing that this is a question of free religion, not healthcare.
I think Obama should just let Religious organizations not give contraception services to the general public (woman). What will happen is that it will be deamed unconstitutional by the courts eventually since it would be discriminatory against women. Obama should go back and say we can't fight this politically. We will have to give in and fight through the courts.
I wouldn't expect anyone at TPM to understand the difference, but there's a huge difference between Congress adding contraception coverage to Federal employees healthcare coverage and forcing the Catholic Church to add contraception coverage to their employees healthcare coverage.
This is a pure political nonsense issue. Hormonal contraception is dirt cheap and widely available at an even further subsidized level. I doubt there will actually even be a cost difference for the person without coverage. In fact you might pay more if you have a generic copay. I got screwed on that deal when I paid my standard 10 copay through insurance for something that would have been 4 bucks from another pharmacy without a drug plan. So in the real, non-politicized world, there is zero difference. Every woman gets an annual OBG checkup from their health coverage. Get your annual prescription at that time, get it filled for the same price or cheaper than any drug plan, STFU. A few people made these points but I will respond with these quotes Technically they are being forced to pay for it if they buy into the group health coverage. If it is not prescribed for contraception it is covered by the health plan.
how much are birth control pills, i asked earlier in the thread. i used to by my ex's on the co pay for $20
the point on catholic girls was a freakin joke that any reasonable poster including yourself should realize the comment on abortion and preventive medicine was just a vent on the right's attack of these legal options for women.
courage: @NorahODonnell: In the Oval Office, President Obama refuses to answer if he stands by contraception rule. Says to reporter: "Come on guys."
from this site, birth control has a wide range of prices. now i don't know if some of the more expensive kinds are necessary for women but if some lvn making $12 an hr at a catholic hospital wants different options they should be available to her.
Pharma companies change their products all the time enough to get a new patent then spend millions convincing us it is better. It makes sense in their business model. Everyone has seen the commercial for these and subsequent SNL parodies. To directly address your scenario, even if these latest patented contraceptives were covered, they would be Tier 3 meds and cost 40-45 bucks. Making $12/hr and <$25K/yr would likely mean you are making hard choices anyways and I doubt expensive, heavily marketed, identically effective, birth control would be a priority. I didn't even mention you could also pay for these with your pre-tax medical expense account if they cover them or not which also lowers the price. <iframe id="NBC Video Widget" width="512" height="347" src="http://www.nbc.com/assets/video/widget/widget.html?vid=221774" frameborder="0"></iframe>
I guess you must be talking politically because as far as doing good for the country, this move is dumb. It raises the abortion debate again, further dividing the country, and does little to change costs for birth control. If you want to actually do something for the girl bringing home less than $40K-$50K a year, mandate dental coverage. A single cleaning without insurance will cost more than a year of pills even if their plan doesn't cover them.
53% of voters are women, 86% of Catholics agree with contraception rights, letting women know which party has their best interest at heart, priceless
I'm not clear how insuring women have the best possible healthcare they can is worrying about political gain.
If you understood (or acknowledged) the issue in the real world you would see this is pretty much a meaningless move outside of politics.
That's not true. You seem to be implying that BC is cheap enough that people will make the decision to use it on their own if it wasn't covered. And maybe in a theoretical purely rational world, that's the case. But the reality is that people don't make purely rational decisions. The idea that it's "free" has the ability to change behavior. And it's been shown that increased access to BC has reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies (and abortions). So in the real world, you can see very real effects from expanding "free" access to BC.
I am implying that BC is so cheap, covering it or not covering it doesn't really change the price or access. How does this increase the access, and is it similar to the increased access in the studies you are talking about? Don't try to compare this move to something like making the morning after pill OTC. THAT is increased access. They will still need to get a script, and they can still buy it mail order, 90 day, implant, shot, whatever. They could have just as easily gone with the Well Woman exams, HIV screenings and whatever and it would have been a small footnote on healthcare reform without a mention from the media.
As usual, it's a sausage party talking about an issue where we should be listening to women. Don't blame them from being largely absent in this thread, but it's too bad.
i agree with you B-bob. just as a woman's place is doing the laundry/dishes, etc., it is their responsibility to not get prego unless authorized by their man. /joke
