Free birth control as of tomorrow. Is $9 a month too much to pay on your own?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-24-2011
Free birth control as of tomorrow. Is $9 a month too much to pay on your own?
11
Tue, 07-31-2012 - 6:13pm

I cannot get behind this. Birth control is not that expensive. Planned Parenthood is even free, I believe, so why should tax dollars pay for it? I pay $9 per month at Walmart, a store readily available almost anywhere. Insurances do not even cover lifesaving medications for free, so why birth control? Condoms are not that expensive either. So gee, thank you, now I can save my whopping $9 a month and put it towards my diabetes medication, something totally unregulated and extremely expensive and lifesaving. I wish going without it was merely as simply as saying "No, honey, not until I can get to the pharmacy/clinic/doctor tomorrow and get my free pills." Ridiculous. If I cannot afford my insulin, I will die but I am so thrilled my pills are free! If women want to be responsible for their own body, they should be responsible for their own body. The "stay out of my womb" t-shirts only matter and make sense if you are not asking the government to get IN your womb by paying for your pills. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2008

I agree with you, but as a tax payer, I would rather pay for someone's $9 a month birth control than pay to support someone's welfare child.  The birth control is much cheaper.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009

State laws vary. In some states, pharmacies are NOT allowed to dispense birth control for less-than-cost.  You're using a number which is the lowest end of the cost spectrum:  http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2012-03-09/Birth-control-prices-range-widley-from-100-to-1000/53434126/1

There's also the issue of insurance coverage for "performance enhancing" drugs like Viagra and Cialis, while contraceptive measures (oh the irony!) for the other end of the equation, were NOT covered by insurance.

Save your indignation for another topic. This one is just commonsense.  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/calculator-birth-control-expensive-really-cost

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001

Once birth control is "free" (which really means paid for by others), do you think people will make an effort to purchase less expensive options or will cost no longer matter to them resulting in the national cost of birth control in the US suddenly  & dramatically increasing?  That should be interesting to observe and be a quick way to predict what will happen to health care costs in general under Obamacare.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
No, I don't think that women will necessarily go to more expensive options. What matters more is what works. Some women cannot take the Pill because there's a family history of blood clots or breast cancer.

I think you would do well to consider what it costs to cover a pregnancy, a delivery, and the health care costs of a baby, then child. I'd be willing to bet a considerable amount of money that birth control is a pittance by comparison.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Why? Shouldn't men with errectile dysfunction, by the same logic, pay for the cost of drugs like Cialis and Levitra?

Also ignored in the OP is this simple fact--nobody is compelling a woman to use birth control. It's a choice which ought to be a woman's to make.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009

Besides the fact that Obama is using our money to try and buy votes, we are also witnessing Obama's opinion of women.

He thinks women are so stupid and irresponsible, that without the government stepping in, they have no choice but to become pregnant. How insulting!

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-24-2011

Actually, there are quite a few birth control pills at Walmart for $9 a month. Condoms are not much more than that and have the added bonus of preventing a lot of HPV and other STD cases. I cannot wait to see how high the statistics of those diseases increase now that people have free birth control. Will the government then start paying for all treatment of sexual diseases?

I have no 'indignation' towards this, just a saddened state of mind towards the fact that people want the government out of their wombs and out of their business, yet they want government to pay for their womb and something as personal as sex.

The example that a pregnancy costs a lot more than birth control is irrelevant. Taking my insulin is a lot cheaper than the resulting hospital trip will cost too, especially cheaper than my funeral, yet I do not see anyone finding that a priority. Putting a new roof on my house now is a lot cheaper than when it falls inwards and causes massive internal damage, and possible physical damage to my home, yet no one will cover that. That is because personal responsibility should be just that: personal.

If a person chooses to have sex, they should be on their own paying for the possible pregnancy that results, but we live in a country now where people purport to want freedom yet want it all on someone else's dime, without any blame or responsibility or accountability for actions.

Very sad.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-24-2011

I also feel that if people are getting it for free, they should be forced to choose from the generic, lower-level tier of prescription. AKA least use of tax dollars.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
People want their insurance companies to pay for contraception coverage just as they do with any other medical issue. That's the point.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009

I remember similar howls about the labeling of food products.  Made no sense.  As for $9 generics, "some women go through a number of brands before finding one that doesn't cause uncomfortable side effects, says Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Her organization operates a website, http://www.bedsider.org , that details options along with the price range."Not every woman can use generic pills, by any means," Brown says. "Do we say to people, 'Just go get generic cardiac medicines. Hope that works out for you?"  http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2012-03-09/Birth-control-prices-range-widley-from-100-to-1000/53434126/1

Take your angst ("very sad") about covering birth control elsewhere.  After all the screeds coming from conservatives about abortion rights, I simply do not have the patience to read more guff when it comes to prophylactic measures.  Simply put, women have every right in the world to enjoy sexual gratification without having to worry about whether they will be forced to pay, one way or another.  There's a damnable double standard with the male gender having little of either responsibility or cost for climax; and the female gender being compelled to pay over and over and over again.  It makes no sense at any level.    

Choose.  Right now and be consistent.  Either cost is a factor (which your OP made abundantly clear is the de facto case) or it is not.  YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS and claim that the cost of pregnancy is "irrelevant".  Heck, you use cost as basis for preventive maintenance.  As for claiming personal responsibility, do let me know how you would fare if the air, water, and food quality standards upon which you rely for safe consumption, were entirely removed.  You able to vet and/or treat them?  Costs money, why should it be taxpayer-funded, etc.......?

Jabberwocka