no, but it does it ignore the other point I made. - Edit 1
Before modification by nossy at 11/03/2012 10:30:33 AM
My point is that a birth control pill should certainly be covered by health insurance if it's being used to treat a medical condition, but I really don't see why it should be covered if it is going to be used other than for a medical condition. Go out and buy it on your own money; your doctor can still prescribe it to you, but you don't, strictly speaking, NEED it.
No, "need" is relative. I agree with that. But from a government's perspective, other than pissing off the religious types, there is no negative effect to offering affordable birth control. The last estimate I saw said it takes something like $8000 (ave) to make a baby. What if that woman/family did not plan for and cannot afford that? Where does that money come from? Maternity insurance, or govt aid. Either way, she won't be refused the basic level of care, so it is pretty obvious that the pill (meaning all medicinal BC) is the preferable option. Of course it won't stop all unwanted pregnancies, but it does have the best record for keeping people unknockedup, especially when used with other options.
Anyway, think whatever you want, but I do think it makes sense to offer it affordably. I don't want to say it, but you may be slightly out of touch with how much difference it makes to be able to keep a few extra bucks while living paycheck to paycheck.
Of course, I have no problem with the day after pill being legal, either. From an insurance perspective, it would be cheaper to just cover that rather than bother with the ongoing cost of birth control pills.
And which is more likely to be accepted by the public?
By the way, if you ever are in pain in the hospital, ask for dilaudid. The high is so intense you feel like you're about to come so hard you can feel it in your fingertips and toes.
Which I would totally want to experience while in a public hospital!
Have you forgotten that I was bordering on prudery in that handy little scale?
