If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   In the latest salvo fired in the Republican War on Women, Governor Bobby Jindal suggests that birth control should be over the counter. Wait, what?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 224
    More: Interesting, Bobby Jindal, human beings, Equal Pay Act, Paycheck Fairness Act, obstetricians, Priebus tried, shiny objects, Priebus  
•       •       •

1539 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Dec 2012 at 1:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-14 11:39:39 AM
It's an interesting idea, and I certainly like it better than some busybody religious folks sticking their noses where it doesn't belong and determining how employees may use their benefits.

Of course, the right thing to do would be for the busybody religious folks sticking their noses where it doesn't belong and determining how employees may use their benefits to back the f*ck off. But that's not likely to happen.
 
2012-12-14 11:46:26 AM
I think it's a good idea. Also, most health insurance doesn't cover OTC medication, so that would solve that issue, too.
 
2012-12-14 11:46:53 AM
I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.
 
2012-12-14 11:48:30 AM

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.


what she said
 
2012-12-14 11:48:31 AM
Considering that HBC can have some pretty accute side effects, I'm pretty sure that would be a bad idea.

It also seems like these folks still think there's only one kind of oral contraceptive.

I followed the link to the "study" (which is really just the result of a bunch of people talking and then finding some sources, it looks like) and damn them's some rosy colored glasses.
 
2012-12-14 11:49:41 AM

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees. Link
 
2012-12-14 11:52:28 AM

Nabb1: what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees. Link


As I said above, read that a little more carefully, they base a whole ton of their findings on phone surveys and some pretty loosey-goosey assumptions.
 
2012-12-14 11:52:48 AM

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.


Well, I kind of thought the same thing, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists thinks its safe enough to give OTC. Which kind of sways me to think it's probably okay. It would be behind the counter, and pharmacists would be there to answer questions and help them with the choices (ideally). 

But yes, I think it should be drop dead free no matter what kind of healthcare system we have.
 
2012-12-14 11:54:51 AM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Nabb1: what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees. Link

As I said above, read that a little more carefully, they base a whole ton of their findings on phone surveys and some pretty loosey-goosey assumptions.


There are side effects to any OTC medication with long term use. A concerned woman should obviously talk to her physician about such usage, but there is no reason to restrict access to birth control to prescription-only. The objections to this seem more political than scientific, to me, anyway.
 
2012-12-14 11:56:14 AM

Nabb1: what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees. Link


They're making the best of a bad situation. Women without health insurance should still have across to birth control, they say, and under the current situation, they are correct.

Lets solve the underlying problem of women who don't have access to health care.

I gave an uninsured friend some of my left over birth control pills and a few months later she walked into an emergeny room worried she was going to kill herself.

Now, she was in law school at the time...
 
2012-12-14 11:58:00 AM

Nabb1: The objections to this seem more political than scientific, to me, anyway.


Having seen the tribulations of what my various female friends have gone through to find the correct HBC, I'm firmly in the camp of having it be RX only (through PP or some gyn or whatever).

As other said, it should be a no-copay covered medication and we should have single payer anyway, but yeah, I really think that its a complex enough issue with enough patient education and variance needed that a Doc should be involved.
 
2012-12-14 11:58:34 AM

what_now: Nabb1: what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees. Link

They're making the best of a bad situation. Women without health insurance should still have across to birth control, they say, and under the current situation, they are correct.

Lets solve the underlying problem of women who don't have access to health care.

I gave an uninsured friend some of my left over birth control pills and a few months later she walked into an emergeny room worried she was going to kill herself.

Now, she was in law school at the time...


Wait... you think a doctor should monitor birth control intake and you distributed some of your own prescription medication to another person?
 
2012-12-14 12:00:19 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Nabb1: The objections to this seem more political than scientific, to me, anyway.

Having seen the tribulations of what my various female friends have gone through to find the correct HBC, I'm firmly in the camp of having it be RX only (through PP or some gyn or whatever).

As other said, it should be a no-copay covered medication and we should have single payer anyway, but yeah, I really think that its a complex enough issue with enough patient education and variance needed that a Doc should be involved.


I'm sorry, is there anything that would prohibit a woman from speaking to her doctor about all this without the necessity of needing a prescription for the actual medication?
 
2012-12-14 12:02:43 PM
Is this a ploy to get people to pay more out of pocket for birth control?
 
2012-12-14 12:04:49 PM

Nabb1: what_now: Nabb1: what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees. Link

They're making the best of a bad situation. Women without health insurance should still have across to birth control, they say, and under the current situation, they are correct.

Lets solve the underlying problem of women who don't have access to health care.

I gave an uninsured friend some of my left over birth control pills and a few months later she walked into an emergeny room worried she was going to kill herself.

Now, she was in law school at the time...

Wait... you think a doctor should monitor birth control intake and you distributed some of your own prescription medication to another person?


Yes. I learned from that experience.
 
2012-12-14 12:05:36 PM

Nabb1: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Nabb1: The objections to this seem more political than scientific, to me, anyway.

Having seen the tribulations of what my various female friends have gone through to find the correct HBC, I'm firmly in the camp of having it be RX only (through PP or some gyn or whatever).

As other said, it should be a no-copay covered medication and we should have single payer anyway, but yeah, I really think that its a complex enough issue with enough patient education and variance needed that a Doc should be involved.

I'm sorry, is there anything that would prohibit a woman from speaking to her doctor about all this without the necessity of needing a prescription for the actual medication?


No, but once something goes OTC people seem to think it's perfectly safe and has no side effects whatsoever. Realistically, who is going to pay for a doctor's appointment to talk about something that doesn't need a script?
 
2012-12-14 12:05:57 PM

Nabb1: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Nabb1: The objections to this seem more political than scientific, to me, anyway.

Having seen the tribulations of what my various female friends have gone through to find the correct HBC, I'm firmly in the camp of having it be RX only (through PP or some gyn or whatever).

As other said, it should be a no-copay covered medication and we should have single payer anyway, but yeah, I really think that its a complex enough issue with enough patient education and variance needed that a Doc should be involved.

I'm sorry, is there anything that would prohibit a woman from speaking to her doctor about all this without the necessity of needing a prescription for the actual medication?


Yes. If she doesn't have a doctor because she can't afford healh insurance.
 
2012-12-14 12:10:47 PM

what_now: There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC alcohol


And therefore we need the state involved in our lives at every turn. It's for our own good.
 
2012-12-14 12:11:25 PM

trivial use of my dark powers: Nabb1: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Nabb1: The objections to this seem more political than scientific, to me, anyway.

Having seen the tribulations of what my various female friends have gone through to find the correct HBC, I'm firmly in the camp of having it be RX only (through PP or some gyn or whatever).

As other said, it should be a no-copay covered medication and we should have single payer anyway, but yeah, I really think that its a complex enough issue with enough patient education and variance needed that a Doc should be involved.

I'm sorry, is there anything that would prohibit a woman from speaking to her doctor about all this without the necessity of needing a prescription for the actual medication?

No, but once something goes OTC people seem to think it's perfectly safe and has no side effects whatsoever. Realistically, who is going to pay for a doctor's appointment to talk about something that doesn't need a script?


Exactly that. It's not that they're special because they're women, it's the people in general do not have the requisite knowledge to consider the contraindications for the one of 4 dozen HBC formulations they're taking (much less know what "contraindication means"), plus different people have different dosage levels that are effective for them, AND HBC can do nasty things like spike chloresterol and blood pressure, etc.

There's no part of this debate where it is safer or more effective from a medical standpoint to make it OTC than RX.

As someone else noted, this paper simply goes from the basis that there's a case to be made for better access, but Obamacare *provides* for that better access.

Jindal is just putting it forward because he thinks it's okay to endanger women's health in order to placate the religious nutjobs.
 
2012-12-14 12:12:49 PM

what_now: Nabb1: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Nabb1: The objections to this seem more political than scientific, to me, anyway.

Having seen the tribulations of what my various female friends have gone through to find the correct HBC, I'm firmly in the camp of having it be RX only (through PP or some gyn or whatever).

As other said, it should be a no-copay covered medication and we should have single payer anyway, but yeah, I really think that its a complex enough issue with enough patient education and variance needed that a Doc should be involved.

I'm sorry, is there anything that would prohibit a woman from speaking to her doctor about all this without the necessity of needing a prescription for the actual medication?

Yes. If she doesn't have a doctor because she can't afford healh insurance.


And if she can't afford health insurance, then she can't get prescription birth control. Sudafed kills more people than birth control, and that's OTC. Sort of. Stupid tweakers. (Sudafed causes atrial fibrillation in some people.) I'm not going to presume to second guess the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on this. If they think it's safe enough to go forward with it, I say go. I had the same concerns as you until very recently.
 
2012-12-14 12:15:23 PM

sweetmelissa31: Is this a ploy to get people to pay more out of pocket for birth control?


The current state of affairs is a ploy to force women to pay for unnecessary doctor's visits.

Some of the really greedy doctors will add a pelvic exam to the bill regardless of its necessity, even though it's irrelevant to the issue of birth control.

Imagine if a male farker had to get a prostate exam and erectile function test in order to get a prescription for condoms.

Holding women's health hostage to intrusive medical procedures is okay long as it's not Republicans doing it, right?
 
2012-12-14 12:16:09 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Jindal is just putting it forward because he thinks it's okay to endanger women's health in order to placate the religious nutjobs.


You do know the Catholic Church's position on oral contraceptives, don't you?
 
2012-12-14 12:24:24 PM

Gulper Eel: The current state of affairs is a ploy to force women to pay for unnecessary doctor's visits.

Imagine if a male farker had to get a prostate exam and erectile function test in order to get a prescription for condoms.


First of all, every woman should be able to see a gynecologist every year. I'm torn on the prescription birth control issue because not every woman can afford to see a gynecologist. However, the pill is not like a condom. I had a bad experience with it, and I'm glad I have insurance so I could see a gynecologist about it.
 
2012-12-14 12:28:29 PM

sweetmelissa31: Is this a ploy to get people to pay more out of pocket for birth control?


does Torg love potatoes?
 
2012-12-14 12:29:40 PM

Gulper Eel: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Jindal is just putting it forward because he thinks it's okay to endanger women's health in order to placate the religious nutjobs.

You do know the Catholic Church's position on oral contraceptives, don't you?


Being raised Catholic, yes. I also know that the overwhelming majority of Catholics either 1) use oral contraceptives (or other forms of birth control, and 2) most DNGAF.

Ground-level RCC is often very, very different than what the Vatican would like.
 
2012-12-14 12:30:46 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Ground-level RCC is often very, very different than what the Vatican would like.


That's the understatement of the week.
 
2012-12-14 12:30:51 PM
I'm torn on the prescription birth control issue because not every woman can afford to see a gynecologist.

Exactly. While having OTC birth control might be the best solution right now, what we really need is single payer health care.
 
2012-12-14 12:31:47 PM
Stupid phone.

Y U no quote Melissa??
 
2012-12-14 12:32:25 PM

sweetmelissa31: Is this a ploy to get people to pay more out of pocket for birth control?


DING, DING, DING!!!
 
2012-12-14 12:32:36 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Being raised Catholic, yes. I also know that the overwhelming majority of Catholics either 1) use oral contraceptives (or other forms of birth control, and 2) most DNGAF.

Ground-level RCC is often very, very different than what the Vatican would like.


You weren't talking about ground-level RCC, you said specifically 'religious nutjobs'.

Cadinal Dolan will be against it in no uncertain terms.
 
2012-12-14 12:33:13 PM

Gulper Eel: Some of the really greedy doctors will add a pelvic exam to the bill regardless of its necessity, even though it's irrelevant to the issue of birth control.


Has nothing to do with greed, it has to do with many folks who go in to get HBC rarely have them and *should*, so having one at that point of patient content is coincidentally advantageous to the person inquiring about HBC.

Not to mention there's a non-small number of folks who go for HBC *after* they actually should have, and going on HBC when unknowingly pregnant is, obviously, a recipe for potential disaster.
 
2012-12-14 12:34:04 PM

Gulper Eel: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Being raised Catholic, yes. I also know that the overwhelming majority of Catholics either 1) use oral contraceptives (or other forms of birth control, and 2) most DNGAF.

Ground-level RCC is often very, very different than what the Vatican would like.

You weren't talking about ground-level RCC, you said specifically 'religious nutjobs'.

Cadinal Dolan will be against it in no uncertain terms.


Goin' pretty far to pick an argument on a Friday morning there, spanky.
 
2012-12-14 12:34:32 PM
The New Orleans alt. weekly, The Gambit, recently had a headline reading "Turning on a Dime," denoting Jindal's future ambitions.

I'll give him this much - he can see the forest from the trees.

But this is the same man who diverted tax dollars to sectarian schools that were not held to the same standards as public ones. You know, DVDs about Jesus in lieu of actual teachers, windowless rooms, etc. He is also among the handful of Southern governors not implementing Meidcaire exchanges despite the extremely generous federal subsidy.

In short, he's an asshole. But I do look forward to him running for president just so I can sardonically call him "Piyush," in mockery of how his ilk are fond of Obama's middle name.

I don't trust people who convert their entire prior culture in order to be more mainstream.
 
2012-12-14 12:34:56 PM

what_now: I'm torn on the prescription birth control issue because not every woman can afford to see a gynecologist.

Exactly. While having OTC birth control might be the best solution right now, what we really need is single payer health care.


Exactly, exactly. If I ran the US, no woman would ever pay a damn dime for BC, and she would have access to a gynecologist to consult about it.
 
2012-12-14 12:36:22 PM

sweetmelissa31: First of all, every woman should be able to see a gynecologist every year. I'm torn on the prescription birth control issue because not every woman can afford to see a gynecologist. However, the pill is not like a condom. I had a bad experience with it, and I'm glad I have insurance so I could see a gynecologist about it.


Guys have latex allergies and spermicide allergies. They can have bad experiences with condoms too. Maybe they buy them a size too big because they got to the gym in 26 minutes that day and they felt like celebrating.

Therefore condoms should be prescription only because guys are too dumb and arrogant to figure out which kind is right for them and they need to see a handsomely-compensated expert or two.
 
2012-12-14 12:37:20 PM
Agreed
 
2012-12-14 12:37:45 PM
That would be Medicaid, sorry.
 
2012-12-14 12:39:39 PM

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.


I came into this thread to say the same thing.
 
2012-12-14 12:40:43 PM
Hmmm....Hormonal contraception is best if prescribed and monitored. But this is a step. Maybe a baby step and maybe not quite in the right direction, but it is a step away from the "Stupid Party" of Gov. Jindal's prior statements. Maybe he can be reasonable and reasoned with.
 
2012-12-14 12:43:51 PM

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.


This is why you're farkied as 'entirely too sensible'.
 
2012-12-14 12:44:10 PM

hillbillypharmacist: what_now: I'm torn on the prescription birth control issue because not every woman can afford to see a gynecologist.

Exactly. While having OTC birth control might be the best solution right now, what we really need is single payer health care.

Exactly, exactly. If I ran the US, no woman would ever pay a damn dime for BC, and she would have access to a gynecologist to consult about it.


So, you would have the government continue to control what a woman does with her body for the political sake of a larger entitlement agenda?
 
2012-12-14 12:44:30 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Has nothing to do with greed, it has to do with many folks who go in to get HBC rarely have them and *should*, so having one at that point of patient content is coincidentally advantageous to the person inquiring about HBC.


Now put yourself in the shoes of a woman in the one group where abortions have not been trending down in recent years: women in their 20's and 30's who already have at least one kid. Single moms in particular.

They've got enough on their plate without having to take a day off to sit in a doctor's office to get a ten-minute once-over and the almighty prescription.

Usage would go up tremendously if all the woman had to do was head down to a kiosk at the CVS and answer some simple questions.
 
2012-12-14 12:46:18 PM
Jindal disfavors spending money to monitor anything beginning with the letter V.
 
2012-12-14 12:47:11 PM

Gulper Eel: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Has nothing to do with greed, it has to do with many folks who go in to get HBC rarely have them and *should*, so having one at that point of patient content is coincidentally advantageous to the person inquiring about HBC.

Now put yourself in the shoes of a woman in the one group where abortions have not been trending down in recent years: women in their 20's and 30's who already have at least one kid. Single moms in particular.

They've got enough on their plate without having to take a day off to sit in a doctor's office to get a ten-minute once-over and the almighty prescription.

Usage would go up tremendously if all the woman had to do was head down to a kiosk at the CVS and answer some simple questions.


We can't have that, now can we?
 
2012-12-14 12:47:39 PM

Nabb1: So, you would have the government continue to control what a woman does with her body for the political sake of a larger entitlement agenda?


The only control in that scenario would be by a physician. And they aren't the government.

I'm not a straw man.
 
2012-12-14 12:48:28 PM

Gulper Eel: Usage would go up tremendously if all the woman had to do was head down to a kiosk at the CVS and answer some simple questions.


Usage is nice. Effective usage is better. Effective usage that is facilitated by a doctor who can discuss with her best usage and precautions, plus adjust dosage and formulation to best fit her body is best.

If you're so concerned about that demographic, you should 1) be fighting hard to universal implementation of Obamacare and 2) be pushing hard for extensive funding of Planned Parenthood so that your hypothetical individual in your cherrypicked demographic doesn't *have* to take the whole day off.
 
2012-12-14 12:52:00 PM

Gulper Eel: They've got enough on their plate without having to take a day off to sit in a doctor's office to get a ten-minute once-over and the almighty prescription.


It is quite annoying to have to go to the gynecologist for my fix every time I want to have sex.
 
2012-12-14 12:52:10 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: So, you would have the government continue to control what a woman does with her body for the political sake of a larger entitlement agenda?

The only control in that scenario would be by a physician. And they aren't the government.

I'm not a straw man.


Are you or are you not in favor of making birth control medication available OTC? If the medical community is in favor, then the resistance to it is going to largely be political, which means by restricting women's access by legally requiring a prescription that doctors by and large believe is unnecessary from a medical standpoint, then you are placing a barrier to women that is based on a political agenda.
 
2012-12-14 12:52:16 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Well, I kind of thought the same thing, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists thinks its safe enough to give OTC. Which kind of sways me to think it's probably okay. It would be behind the counter, and pharmacists would be there to answer questions and help them with the choices (ideally) refuse to give it to them for moral reasons.

 
2012-12-14 12:53:43 PM

Relatively Obscure: hillbillypharmacist: Well, I kind of thought the same thing, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists thinks its safe enough to give OTC. Which kind of sways me to think it's probably okay. It would be behind the counter, and pharmacists would be there to answer questions and help them with the choices (ideally) refuse to give it to them for moral reasons.


How can a pharmacist refuse to give someone an OTC medication? Hide them in the back?
 
2012-12-14 12:58:10 PM

Nabb1: Are you or are you not in favor of making birth control medication available OTC? If the medical community is in favor, then the resistance to it is going to largely be political, which means by restricting women's access by legally requiring a prescription that doctors by and large believe is unnecessary from a medical standpoint, then you are placing a barrier to women that is based on a political agenda.


Sure I'm for OTC BC, given an environment where employers, who are utterly tangential, are restricting access.

If BC and seeing a gynecologist were free to the patient (like it would be under single payer), it wouldn't be a barrier, and thus there wouldn't be any need to expose the patient to a greater risk. You also assume that ACOG's recommendations aren't to some degree driven by a political agenda also. I'm not the only one who would rather it be OTC for the purpose of foiling the religious wingnuts.
 
2012-12-14 01:00:53 PM
Looks like his angling for a wider appeal.
 
2012-12-14 01:03:27 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: Are you or are you not in favor of making birth control medication available OTC? If the medical community is in favor, then the resistance to it is going to largely be political, which means by restricting women's access by legally requiring a prescription that doctors by and large believe is unnecessary from a medical standpoint, then you are placing a barrier to women that is based on a political agenda.

Sure I'm for OTC BC, given an environment where employers, who are utterly tangential, are restricting access.

If BC and seeing a gynecologist were free to the patient (like it would be under single payer), it wouldn't be a barrier, and thus there wouldn't be any need to expose the patient to a greater risk. You also assume that ACOG's recommendations aren't to some degree driven by a political agenda also. I'm not the only one who would rather it be OTC for the purpose of foiling the religious wingnuts.


If the medical community is by and large okay with it being OTC from a medical standpoint, then yes, requiring a woman to go to the doctor first, even if being paid for, is still a barrier. It may not be a barrier in terms of a straight financial transaction, but it still requires a woman to take the time to go see a gynecologist when such a visit may not otherwise be necessary. Conversely, if a woman has access to a gynecologist, there is nothing to prevent her from speaking to her doctor about OTC options, which is not much different from me discussing my OTC options for allergy and sinus medication with my doctor or talking about OTC options for exzcema with a dermatologist.
 
2012-12-14 01:05:45 PM

Nabb1: It may not be a barrier in terms of a straight financial transaction, but it still requires a woman to take the time to go see a gynecologist when such a visit may not otherwise be necessary.


It's a small barrier. One that is well outweighed by risk avoidance.

Barriers, in and of themselves, aren't bad. In my hypothetical situation, the barrier of making time to see a doctor is miniscule compared to the barriers in place now.
 
2012-12-14 01:07:15 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: If you're so concerned about that demographic, you should 1) be fighting hard to universal implementation of Obamacare and 2) be pushing hard for extensive funding of Planned Parenthood so that your hypothetical individual in your cherrypicked demographic doesn't *have* to take the whole day off.


Who's cherrypicking? My info on the group I illustrated comes straight from Guttmacher. It is not an insignificant group, either.

This is an opportunity to let a woman put the control of her body in her hands and hers alone. Whether she gets birth control should not be a business decision OR a political decision. She can get her situation taken care of on her time, not when the doctor or the clinic finds it convenient.
 
2012-12-14 01:09:29 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: It may not be a barrier in terms of a straight financial transaction, but it still requires a woman to take the time to go see a gynecologist when such a visit may not otherwise be necessary.

It's a small barrier. One that is well outweighed by risk avoidance.

Barriers, in and of themselves, aren't bad. In my hypothetical situation, the barrier of making time to see a doctor is miniscule compared to the barriers in place now.


Right, barriers are fine as long as they advance the political agenda. So, let's arbitrarily block women from access to birth control over the counter, and force them to the doctor (who is probably going to just write the prescription without a moment's hesitation) so that we can keep women firmly in the yoke of government. Making time to see a doctor is a pain in the rear for most people who work. Most doctors only operate during hours when most people work, and even a routine visit usually translates to hours. Maybe that's not a big deal to you, but it is to some people.
 
2012-12-14 01:10:21 PM

Gulper Eel: This is an opportunity to let a woman put the control of her body in her hands and hers alone. Whether she gets birth control should not be a business decision OR a political decision. She can get her situation taken care of on her time, not when the doctor or the clinic finds it convenient.


Absolutely, so supporting Obamacare and Planned Parenthood is the way to go.

Making HBC OTC is not the most efficacious way to achieve that goal.
 
2012-12-14 01:10:43 PM

Gulper Eel: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: If you're so concerned about that demographic, you should 1) be fighting hard to universal implementation of Obamacare and 2) be pushing hard for extensive funding of Planned Parenthood so that your hypothetical individual in your cherrypicked demographic doesn't *have* to take the whole day off.

Who's cherrypicking? My info on the group I illustrated comes straight from Guttmacher. It is not an insignificant group, either.

This is an opportunity to let a woman put the control of her body in her hands and hers alone. Whether she gets birth control should not be a business decision OR a political decision. She can get her situation taken care of on her time, not when the doctor or the clinic finds it convenient.


Somehow, giving women self-determination on this issue is bad. Really, really bad.
 
2012-12-14 01:11:23 PM

Nabb1: Most doctors only operate during hours when most people work, and even a routine visit usually translates to hours. Maybe that's not a big deal to you, but it is to some people.


So support Planned Parenthood so they can open more locations, since they operate outside of work hours and on weekends.
 
2012-12-14 01:11:50 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Gulper Eel: This is an opportunity to let a woman put the control of her body in her hands and hers alone. Whether she gets birth control should not be a business decision OR a political decision. She can get her situation taken care of on her time, not when the doctor or the clinic finds it convenient.

Absolutely, so supporting Obamacare and Planned Parenthood is the way to go.

Making HBC OTC is not the most efficacious way to achieve that goal.


Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts, you know. You are basically denying a woman the ability to provide birth control for herself unless she embraces your politics.
 
2012-12-14 01:12:20 PM

Nabb1: Right, barriers are fine as long as they advance the political agenda. So, let's arbitrarily block women from access to birth control over the counter, and force them to the doctor (who is probably going to just write the prescription without a moment's hesitation) so that we can keep women firmly in the yoke of government.


Wait, how does it keep them in the yoke of govermnent?

You're sounding less and less like an attorney and more like a crazy. They would be precisely as 'in the yoke of government' as they are right now.
 
2012-12-14 01:13:13 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Nabb1: Most doctors only operate during hours when most people work, and even a routine visit usually translates to hours. Maybe that's not a big deal to you, but it is to some people.

So support Planned Parenthood so they can open more locations, since they operate outside of work hours and on weekends.


Right - Women's access to birth control should be subservient to your political goals. I get it.
 
2012-12-14 01:14:13 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: Right, barriers are fine as long as they advance the political agenda. So, let's arbitrarily block women from access to birth control over the counter, and force them to the doctor (who is probably going to just write the prescription without a moment's hesitation) so that we can keep women firmly in the yoke of government.

Wait, how does it keep them in the yoke of govermnent?

You're sounding less and less like an attorney and more like a crazy. They would be precisely as 'in the yoke of government' as they are right now.


Restricting women's access to birth control for policy reasons rather than medical reasons is, in effect, government interference with their reproductive rights. You are pro-choice, right?
 
2012-12-14 01:14:16 PM

Nabb1: Gulper Eel: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: If you're so concerned about that demographic, you should 1) be fighting hard to universal implementation of Obamacare and 2) be pushing hard for extensive funding of Planned Parenthood so that your hypothetical individual in your cherrypicked demographic doesn't *have* to take the whole day off.

Who's cherrypicking? My info on the group I illustrated comes straight from Guttmacher. It is not an insignificant group, either.

This is an opportunity to let a woman put the control of her body in her hands and hers alone. Whether she gets birth control should not be a business decision OR a political decision. She can get her situation taken care of on her time, not when the doctor or the clinic finds it convenient.

Somehow, giving women self-determination on this issue is bad. Really, really bad.


You're making me smirk and I'm soon putting you in the troll category.

You're right, it should not be business decision or a political decision. Support Obamacare and Planned Parenthood and your stated goal of having her get HBC on her own time in a *safe* and informed manner will be achieved.
 
2012-12-14 01:15:05 PM

Nabb1: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Nabb1: Most doctors only operate during hours when most people work, and even a routine visit usually translates to hours. Maybe that's not a big deal to you, but it is to some people.

So support Planned Parenthood so they can open more locations, since they operate outside of work hours and on weekends.

Right - Women's access to birth control should be subservient to your political goals. I get it.


Nabb1: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Gulper Eel: This is an opportunity to let a woman put the control of her body in her hands and hers alone. Whether she gets birth control should not be a business decision OR a political decision. She can get her situation taken care of on her time, not when the doctor or the clinic finds it convenient.

Absolutely, so supporting Obamacare and Planned Parenthood is the way to go.

Making HBC OTC is not the most efficacious way to achieve that goal.

Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts, you know. You are basically denying a woman the ability to provide birth control for herself unless she embraces your politics.


Alright, you're a troll on this matter. Have fun, I'm gonna go do work.
 
2012-12-14 01:17:16 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: ...a political decision. Support Obamacare


Which wasn't a political decision?
 
2012-12-14 01:17:50 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Alright, you're a troll on this matter. Have fun, I'm gonna go do work.


You didn't answer the question, which I think is legitimate. Making birth control OTC and supporting Planned Parenthood/Obamacare are not mutually exclusive. Denying women the option of OTC birth control when doctors are okay with it and demanding they have to go through Planned Parenthood/Obamacare is nothing more than a political agenda.
 
2012-12-14 01:21:36 PM
I agree with the exorcist. OTC is long past due.
 
2012-12-14 01:22:31 PM
Another RINO who thinks he can change his spots and kowtow for liberal votes and who is forgetting that conservatives do not forget these things and he may very well find his butt out fo office.
 
2012-12-14 01:23:01 PM
Yes it should be.

Then we don't need to have pharmacists arguing that they don't have to dispense prescribed medicine because they think it's immoral.
 
2012-12-14 01:23:32 PM
I can't help but wonder if this is a direct response to Rick Perry's abortion comments.
 
2012-12-14 01:24:19 PM

Nabb1: Restricting women's access to birth control for policy reasons rather than medical reasons is, in effect, government interference with their reproductive rights. You are pro-choice, right?


There are medical reasons to restrict it. ACOG recommends making it OTC because of public health reasons that would outweigh the medical reasons to restrict. If the public health reasons to allow free access were fulfilled by a single payer system, then the medical reasons would stand unopposed, and it should not be OTC.
 
2012-12-14 01:27:09 PM
True, birth control should be OTC, but this does not excuse any of the good Governor's derp in 99% of his other political communiques.
 
2012-12-14 01:27:57 PM
Slap sufficient warning labels on the box, and it's not much more harmful than something like Prilosec
 
2012-12-14 01:28:41 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: Restricting women's access to birth control for policy reasons rather than medical reasons is, in effect, government interference with their reproductive rights. You are pro-choice, right?

There are medical reasons to restrict it. ACOG recommends making it OTC because of public health reasons that would outweigh the medical reasons to restrict. If the public health reasons to allow free access were fulfilled by a single payer system, then the medical reasons would stand unopposed, and it should not be OTC.


You could say there are medical reasons to restrict a number of medications that are now over the counter. Many of them were once available by prescription only. I think this is an artificial barrier driven by a political agenda that, as Jindal points out, would remove the debate from the political sphere. But, many have been making a lot of hay out of it, and it is not in their interests to see women have unfettered access to OTC birth control.
 
2012-12-14 01:29:38 PM
I know this may come as a shock but most of Republicans actually think a woman should be able to buy BC OTC.
 
2012-12-14 01:30:02 PM

hillbillypharmacist: It's an interesting idea, and I certainly like it better than some busybody religious folks sticking their noses where it doesn't belong and determining how employees may use their benefits.


Nabb1: I think it's a good idea. Also, most health insurance doesn't cover OTC medication, so that would solve that issue, too.


And would thus remove it as a talking point and single-issue politic.
 
2012-12-14 01:31:18 PM
Aren't these republicans afraid that their daughters will buy OTC HBC and become dirty, slutty, whores?
 
2012-12-14 01:31:33 PM

Nabb1: I think this is an artificial barrier driven by a political agenda that, as Jindal points out, would remove the debate from the political sphere. But, many have been making a lot of hay out of it, and it is not in their interests to see women have unfettered access to OTC birth control.


What interest would the rotten old big gummint liberals have in making a woman see a doctor before getting BC, especially if the doctor visit and the medicine were free? Spite? Communism? Political correctness?
 
2012-12-14 01:32:01 PM
My wife was on 4 different kinds of oral contraceptives, one after the other for 3 month courses each, before she gave up and went off the pill -- the hormonal imbalances were impossible for her to deal with and we almost ended up divorced because there was no balance at all and we were fighting over everything. I did my best to be supportive but she was absolutely manic all the time over everything, no matter how inconsequential, and I was the scapegoat. Please hold your "lol women" comments because she was not herself in any sense.

Making an untrained woman personally in charge of ingesting medicine that has enormous hormonal change is hilariously irresponsible. People are still so damn hung up on this being about not getting pregnant, instead of the host of other effects BC pills have on a woman from cyst prevention to cycle regulation. Making it OTC divorces the process of consultation and medical expertise from it, and endangers women everywhere.

Also it is another huge payout to insurance industries who were only just recently mandated to cover BC. So.
 
2012-12-14 01:32:23 PM

sweetmelissa31: Is this a ploy to get people to pay more out of pocket for birth control?


Not exactly. The GOP was hit hard because of their opposition to birth control being covered by insurance. If birth control is OTC they can separate it from insurance coverage since insurance doesn't cover most OTC medications. That means that criticism of the GOP no longer exists.
 
2012-12-14 01:33:53 PM

sweetmelissa31: Is this a ploy to get people to pay more out of pocket for birth control?


Came here to say something like this. If it's OTC, then insurance won't cover any of it, making it more expensive to low-income women. If it's a prescription then they get a break.
 
2012-12-14 01:34:31 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Nabb1: The objections to this seem more political than scientific, to me, anyway.

Having seen the tribulations of what my various female friends have gone through to find the correct HBC, I'm firmly in the camp of having it be RX only (through PP or some gyn or whatever).


That's like saying aspirin doesn't alleviate all pain so let's make it prescription-only. If you're still having problems while taking OTC meds, then by all means go see a doctor. Part of being an adult is taking charge of your own life decisions and not relying on others to do it for you.
 
2012-12-14 01:35:01 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: I think this is an artificial barrier driven by a political agenda that, as Jindal points out, would remove the debate from the political sphere. But, many have been making a lot of hay out of it, and it is not in their interests to see women have unfettered access to OTC birth control.

What interest would the rotten old big gummint liberals have in making a woman see a doctor before getting BC, especially if the doctor visit and the medicine were free? Spite? Communism? Political correctness?


I don't know, but if the prevailing view in the medical community is that, from a medical standpoint, birth control should be available OTC, why force a woman to get a prescription? If a woman wants to talk to a doctor before taking OTC birth control, then good for her. No one should stop her. But why make her go through that step if it is not medically necessary?
 
2012-12-14 01:35:11 PM
If women could buy birth control without a prescription, he argues, employers would not have to pay for it against their moral objections, and Democrats could no longer accuse Republicans of being anti-birth control.

Yeah, that's the ticket. We should make drugs over the counter if it's politically beneficial to do so. What a great reason you have there, Bobby.

I agree they should be OTC but not because of politics. Because doctors say its safe, that's the only relevant thing to ask.
 
2012-12-14 01:35:11 PM

Elandriel: Making an untrained woman personally in charge of ingesting medicine that has enormous hormonal change is hilariously irresponsible. People are still so damn hung up on this being about not getting pregnant, instead of the host of other effects BC pills have on a woman from cyst prevention to cycle regulation. Making it OTC divorces the process of consultation and medical expertise from it, and endangers women everywhere.


Yup - its a clever way to seem magnanimous but at root is another way of saying: if them sluts want to get their humpin' pills, why should employers have to pay for it (please ignore the fact that to properly use these drugs you probably do need a medical consult).
 
2012-12-14 01:35:25 PM
Question: does making birth control available without a prescription remove the need for health insurance to get involved?

I ask for two reasons. One, it would probably end the messy debate over health insurance from groups with religious affiliations. Two, it could open up a new can of worms as costs are no longer offset by health insurance.

What I'm driving at here is, if birth control is OTC, what's to stop an anti-BC pharmacy owner from charging $100 per dose that can't be billed to your insurance?
 
2012-12-14 01:37:26 PM

qorkfiend: What I'm driving at here is, if birth control is OTC, what's to stop an anti-BC pharmacy owner from charging $100 per dose that can't be billed to your insurance?


They wouldnt charge $100 per dose. They just wouldnt stock it at all - and the laws requiring a pharmacy to fill a doctor's scrip would not apply.
 
2012-12-14 01:38:00 PM

hillbillypharmacist: What interest would the rotten old big gummint liberals have in making a woman see a doctor before getting BC, especially if the doctor visit and the medicine were free? Spite? Communism? Political correctness?


THE GREATER ENTITLEMENT AGENDA AND FURTHERMORE,
 
2012-12-14 01:38:29 PM

qorkfiend: Question: does making birth control available without a prescription remove the need for health insurance to get involved?

I ask for two reasons. One, it would probably end the messy debate over health insurance from groups with religious affiliations. Two, it could open up a new can of worms as costs are no longer offset by health insurance.

What I'm driving at here is, if birth control is OTC, what's to stop an anti-BC pharmacy owner from charging $100 per dose that can't be billed to your insurance?


Most insurance does not cover OTC medication. If it's OTC, then it will come in a slick packaged box somewhere on the aisle near the Advil or whatever else and not be locked up in the pharmacy (unless tweakers figure out how to cook BC into meth). There are some birth control pills that cost as little as $8-10 per month, which is less than a box of condoms.
 
2012-12-14 01:38:32 PM

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.


Very true. Hormones are not to be farked with. There are also more chances of misuse if it's OTC.
 
2012-12-14 01:38:35 PM

Nabb1: hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: Restricting women's access to birth control for policy reasons rather than medical reasons is, in effect, government interference with their reproductive rights. You are pro-choice, right?

There are medical reasons to restrict it. ACOG recommends making it OTC because of public health reasons that would outweigh the medical reasons to restrict. If the public health reasons to allow free access were fulfilled by a single payer system, then the medical reasons would stand unopposed, and it should not be OTC.

You could say there are medical reasons to restrict a number of medications that are now over the counter. Many of them were once available by prescription only. I think this is an artificial barrier driven by a political agenda that, as Jindal points out, would remove the debate from the political sphere. But, many have been making a lot of hay out of it, and it is not in their interests to see women have unfettered access to OTC birth control.


No, this is why it should be prescription.
 
2012-12-14 01:39:50 PM

HeartBurnKid: Nabb1: hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: Restricting women's access to birth control for policy reasons rather than medical reasons is, in effect, government interference with their reproductive rights. You are pro-choice, right?

There are medical reasons to restrict it. ACOG recommends making it OTC because of public health reasons that would outweigh the medical reasons to restrict. If the public health reasons to allow free access were fulfilled by a single payer system, then the medical reasons would stand unopposed, and it should not be OTC.

You could say there are medical reasons to restrict a number of medications that are now over the counter. Many of them were once available by prescription only. I think this is an artificial barrier driven by a political agenda that, as Jindal points out, would remove the debate from the political sphere. But, many have been making a lot of hay out of it, and it is not in their interests to see women have unfettered access to OTC birth control.

No, this is why it should be prescription.


Damnit, wrong link. Try this one
 
2012-12-14 01:40:41 PM

Nabb1: I don't know, but if the prevailing view in the medical community is that, from a medical standpoint, birth control should be available OTC, why force a woman to get a prescription? If a woman wants to talk to a doctor before taking OTC birth control, then good for her. No one should stop her. But why make her go through that step if it is not medically necessary?


There is not a bright line definition of 'medically necessary'. If a public health good can be accomplished by making it OTC, then it weighs against restricting it to a prescription. ACOG (and myself) think that, at the moment, we would be better served by making it OTC. However, if the public health good can be accomplished without it being OTC by using a single payer or other comprehensive system, then the medical reasons to keep it prescription only should prevail instead.
 
2012-12-14 01:40:44 PM

HeartBurnKid: Nabb1: hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: Restricting women's access to birth control for policy reasons rather than medical reasons is, in effect, government interference with their reproductive rights. You are pro-choice, right?

There are medical reasons to restrict it. ACOG recommends making it OTC because of public health reasons that would outweigh the medical reasons to restrict. If the public health reasons to allow free access were fulfilled by a single payer system, then the medical reasons would stand unopposed, and it should not be OTC.

You could say there are medical reasons to restrict a number of medications that are now over the counter. Many of them were once available by prescription only. I think this is an artificial barrier driven by a political agenda that, as Jindal points out, would remove the debate from the political sphere. But, many have been making a lot of hay out of it, and it is not in their interests to see women have unfettered access to OTC birth control.

No, this is why it should be prescription.


You better let the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists know that they've made a grievous error.
 
2012-12-14 01:40:58 PM
Isn't aspirin already OTC?

// would hormone-infused IUDs fall under "HBC"?
// no, as that's an implanted device as well
// ladies, consider an IUD - the GOP can't take 'em out of your hoo-ha once they're there, and it's "set it and forget it" in terms of usage
 
2012-12-14 01:41:48 PM

sweetmelissa31: Is this a ploy to get people to pay more out of pocket for birth control?


I already do pay out-of-pocket for OTC birth control.

t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-14 01:42:09 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: I don't know, but if the prevailing view in the medical community is that, from a medical standpoint, birth control should be available OTC, why force a woman to get a prescription? If a woman wants to talk to a doctor before taking OTC birth control, then good for her. No one should stop her. But why make her go through that step if it is not medically necessary?

There is not a bright line definition of 'medically necessary'. If a public health good can be accomplished by making it OTC, then it weighs against restricting it to a prescription. ACOG (and myself) think that, at the moment, we would be better served by making it OTC. However, if the public health good can be accomplished without it being OTC by using a single payer or other comprehensive system, then the medical reasons to keep it prescription only should prevail instead.


So, again, you would keep women from getting birth control OTC in order to advance your political agenda for a much larger nationalization of the health care industry.
 
2012-12-14 01:42:25 PM

Mr_Fabulous: sweetmelissa31: Is this a ploy to get people to pay more out of pocket for birth control?

I already do pay out-of-pocket for OTC birth control.

[t2.gstatic.com image 268x188]


Sure, but you bet your ass we'd be billing it to insurance if we could.
 
2012-12-14 01:42:56 PM

Nabb1: HeartBurnKid: Nabb1: hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: Restricting women's access to birth control for policy reasons rather than medical reasons is, in effect, government interference with their reproductive rights. You are pro-choice, right?

There are medical reasons to restrict it. ACOG recommends making it OTC because of public health reasons that would outweigh the medical reasons to restrict. If the public health reasons to allow free access were fulfilled by a single payer system, then the medical reasons would stand unopposed, and it should not be OTC.

You could say there are medical reasons to restrict a number of medications that are now over the counter. Many of them were once available by prescription only. I think this is an artificial barrier driven by a political agenda that, as Jindal points out, would remove the debate from the political sphere. But, many have been making a lot of hay out of it, and it is not in their interests to see women have unfettered access to OTC birth control.

No, this is why it should be prescription.

You better let the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists know that they've made a grievous error.


They have their opinion, I have mine. I thought you Republican types were all about not blindly submitting to "experts"; what happened to that?
 
2012-12-14 01:43:23 PM
Hey Nabb1, could you hand the microphone to your uterus for a minute?
 
2012-12-14 01:43:41 PM

Nabb1: hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: I don't know, but if the prevailing view in the medical community is that, from a medical standpoint, birth control should be available OTC, why force a woman to get a prescription? If a woman wants to talk to a doctor before taking OTC birth control, then good for her. No one should stop her. But why make her go through that step if it is not medically necessary?

There is not a bright line definition of 'medically necessary'. If a public health good can be accomplished by making it OTC, then it weighs against restricting it to a prescription. ACOG (and myself) think that, at the moment, we would be better served by making it OTC. However, if the public health good can be accomplished without it being OTC by using a single payer or other comprehensive system, then the medical reasons to keep it prescription only should prevail instead.

So, again, you would keep women from getting birth control OTC in order to advance your political agenda for a much larger nationalization of the health care industry.


How about reading what he wrote? I've bolded the important part for you.
 
2012-12-14 01:44:18 PM

Elandriel: Making an untrained woman personally in charge of ingesting medicine that has enormous hormonal change is hilariously irresponsible. People are still so damn hung up on this being about not getting pregnant, instead of the host of other effects BC pills have on a woman from cyst prevention to cycle regulation. Making it OTC divorces the process of consultation and medical expertise from it, and endangers women everywhere.


Buying birth control OTC in no way precludes a woman from consulting a doctor, it just removes that from being a requirement. If a woman is having no issues with an OTC med and wants to handle it herself, what's the problem?

I wonder how many people who want to "legalize drugs" (as I do) here on Fark are on the side of keeping some meds prescription-only. If you're prepared to let people alter their consciousness and potentially destroy their health and lives with one substance, you may as well extend the privilege to all of them.
 
2012-12-14 01:45:06 PM

Nabb1: So, again, you would keep women from getting birth control OTC in order to advance your political agenda for a much larger nationalization of the health care industry.


Wow. No.

Keeping it prescription only would not advance that cause. So that would be a silly thing to think.

Given a nationalization of the health care industry, the reason that BC should be OTC would be eliminated, and thus should revert to being prescription only.
 
2012-12-14 01:45:47 PM

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.


There are serious side effects from a lot of OTC drugs. No one would prevent women from having a doctor monitor her use to find the correct dosage. The real question is can a regular person be tasked to make an appropriate and safe decision for themselves. For every single side effect of birth control, a woman can easily make the appropriate decision with no risk. The vast majority are fine "headache, whoopdy doo." Other times that appropriate decision will be to go see a doctor:

Abdominal pain (stomach pain)
Chest pain
Headaches (severe)
Eye problems (blurred vision)
Swelling and/or aching in the legs and thighs

Imagine two women, one bought BC OTC the other was required to get a prescription. Both get abdominal pain. They're in the exact same boat. Whether they got a prescription to start or not, they both will make the choice to see a doctor or not. The prescription didn't help either of them.
 
2012-12-14 01:46:01 PM

qorkfiend: How about reading what he wrote? I've bolded the important part for you.


Where's the fun in that?

/My bad.
 
2012-12-14 01:46:52 PM

Ambivalence: Very true. Hormones are not to be farked with. There are also more chances of misuse if it's OTC.


All of the other OTC drugs have zero chance of misuse or what?
 
2012-12-14 01:47:13 PM

SuperTramp: Hey Nabb1, could you hand the microphone to your uterus for a minute?


That's a stupid argument. I'm not planning to have kids, does that make my opinions about education moot? I'm not gay, so my feelings on marriage equality are null & void? I'm not rich, so my views on the top 3 brackets don't matter (actually, there are many people that believe this)? I live in America, so my feelings about her foreign policy don't matter?

// it comes into play when you tell a SPECIFIC person what to do with her uterus
// but I'll let you see for yourself how that applies to men and women
 
2012-12-14 01:47:17 PM

HeartBurnKid: They have their opinion, I have mine. I thought you Republican types were all about not blindly submitting to "experts"; what happened to that?


Try not to generalize and stereotype so much and the world may open up many other surprises for you.
 
2012-12-14 01:47:24 PM
I'm ok with this.
 
2012-12-14 01:47:34 PM

what_now: Nabb1: what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees. Link

They're making the best of a bad situation. Women without health insurance should still have across to birth control, they say, and under the current situation, they are correct.

Lets solve the underlying problem of women who don't have access to health care.

I gave an uninsured friend some of my left over birth control pills and a few months later she walked into an emergeny room worried she was going to kill herself.

Now, she was in law school at the time...


Step 1: Restrict access to a drug.
Step 2: People get it through illegal means
Step 3: Some people experience side effects.

Your conclusion is that restriction protects people?
 
2012-12-14 01:47:53 PM
Just for some context - you can buy BC over the counter in Dubai, a country with a legal system based on Sharia law. It's also about a quarter the price as in the US, which should give you an idea how much we're being scammed by Big Pharma.
 
2012-12-14 01:48:58 PM

lennavan: what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.

There are serious side effects from a lot of OTC drugs. No one would prevent women from having a doctor monitor her use to find the correct dosage. The real question is can a regular person be tasked to make an appropriate and safe decision for themselves. For every single side effect of birth control, a woman can easily make the appropriate decision with no risk. The vast majority are fine "headache, whoopdy doo." Other times that appropriate decision will be to go see a doctor:

Abdominal pain (stomach pain)
Chest pain
Headaches (severe)
Eye problems (blurred vision)
Swelling and/or aching in the legs and thighs

Imagine two women, one bought BC OTC the other was required to get a prescription. Both get abdominal pain. They're in the exact same boat. Whether they got a prescription to start or not, they both will make the choice to see a doctor or not. The prescription didn't help either of them.


Now we get into the fun part; would the doctor's visit for what is now an optional medication be covered under insurance? I doubt it. So now we've got women paying full cost out-of-pocket for the medication, and full cost out-of-pocket for a doctor's visit about the medication.

I'm almost starting to think this is a ploy to get people to think that HBC is unsafe.
 
2012-12-14 01:49:21 PM
You so silly Jindal, you actually believed GOP arguments. Their real problem is sex itself, and this in no way punishes women for having it.
 
2012-12-14 01:49:37 PM

qorkfiend: I'm almost starting to think this is a ploy to get people to think that HBC is unsafe.


That's because you're a lunatic.
 
2012-12-14 01:50:03 PM

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.


but at least let's give credit where credit is due.

This is a reasonable conservative solution -- instead of trying to deny medication to the public, make them more available even if more available is more costly to low income families and more likely to be misused by the public.

i'd rather that family planning and services to assist people in this endeavor be a public service (mostly free) but at least we are moving this from "you are a slut you pill popping slut" to "i'll never know and never should I care"
 
2012-12-14 01:50:18 PM

YixilTesiphon: qorkfiend: I'm almost starting to think this is a ploy to get people to think that HBC is unsafe.

That's because you're a lunatic.


Can't both be true?
 
2012-12-14 01:50:56 PM
Only if it has GIANT FRIGGEN WARNING LABELS.

Sorry. I proeabably can't comment *too* rationally on this issue-the idea of OTC birth control makes my brain go "BAD IDEA", largely due to having watched my fiance (well, girlfriend at the time) have a stroke due to a generic of Yaz at the age of 23. (And since it wasn't Yaz, but a GENERIC of Yaz, she wasn't really able to get in on the class action about it...)

Yes, she was the one-in-a-million statistic (and was taking it far before I knew her, for health reasons), but it's things like that which make me feel that there should be a doctor involved, if only to make sure people know the risks and can be more closely monitored. However, I recognize this is likely strongly colored by my own personal experiences.

I'd also like to see the other forms of female birth control and hormone regulation be discussed more in the US. The birth control pill isn't the *only* one.

/She's totally fine now, thankfully.
 
2012-12-14 01:52:14 PM

sweetmelissa31: Gulper Eel: They've got enough on their plate without having to take a day off to sit in a doctor's office to get a ten-minute once-over and the almighty prescription.

It is quite annoying to have to go to the gynecologist for my fix every time I want to have sex.


Ha, like women ever want to have sex.

/married
//so lonely :(
 
2012-12-14 01:52:27 PM
let the Democrats demagogue the contraceptives issue and pretend, during debates about health-care insurance, that Republicans are somehow against birth control.

SOMEHOW
 
2012-12-14 01:53:29 PM
This isnt a surprise. Jindal has been calling for the GOP to back off of their anti-woman rhetoric since they got clobbered in the last election.
 
2012-12-14 01:56:50 PM
Bobby can try to set himself for a presidential all he wants but I doubt people will forget this:

wonkroom.thinkprogress.org

$220 Million down the toilet because he refused to believe those elitist scientists.
 
2012-12-14 01:57:42 PM

Nabb1: HeartBurnKid: They have their opinion, I have mine. I thought you Republican types were all about not blindly submitting to "experts"; what happened to that?

Try not to generalize and stereotype so much and the world may open up many other surprises for you.


Says the guy who's been going through this whole thread accusing everybody else of being hyper-partisan authoritarians.
 
2012-12-14 01:58:23 PM

Nabb1: what_now: Nabb1: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Nabb1: The objections to this seem more political than scientific, to me, anyway.

Having seen the tribulations of what my various female friends have gone through to find the correct HBC, I'm firmly in the camp of having it be RX only (through PP or some gyn or whatever).

As other said, it should be a no-copay covered medication and we should have single payer anyway, but yeah, I really think that its a complex enough issue with enough patient education and variance needed that a Doc should be involved.

I'm sorry, is there anything that would prohibit a woman from speaking to her doctor about all this without the necessity of needing a prescription for the actual medication?

Yes. If she doesn't have a doctor because she can't afford healh insurance.

And if she can't afford health insurance, then she can't get prescription birth control. Sudafed kills more people than birth control, and that's OTC. Sort of. Stupid tweakers. (Sudafed causes atrial fibrillation in some people.) I'm not going to presume to second guess the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on this. If they think it's safe enough to go forward with it, I say go. I had the same concerns as you until very recently.


Maybe Sudafed kills more people than OBC because it's available OTC.
 
2012-12-14 01:59:17 PM

Corvus: $220 Million down the toilet because he refused to believe those elitist scientists.


Stimulus!
 
2012-12-14 01:59:37 PM
As a guy. you can buy condoms over the counter, you can buy them in bathrooms, you can get them free from lots of places.

But when it's women contraception it's OMG!!! We have to make sure people can't just buy them and we have to make sure religious groups aren't offended.

It's double standard BS.
 
2012-12-14 01:59:53 PM

urbangirl: Maybe Sudafed kills more people than OBC because it's available OTC.


I think he was talking about people making meth.
 
2012-12-14 02:01:46 PM

qorkfiend: Now we get into the fun part; would the doctor's visit for what is now an optional medication be covered under insurance? I doubt it.


Of course it would. Pap-smears and general check-ups wouldn't suddenly become unnecessary. During your general check-up, you can ask about a whole slew of things including OTC medicines and insurance will still cover it.

I'm honestly surprised to see the ACOG support BC being OTC. I always viewed it as they hold BC over your head because otherwise you wouldn't go in for annual exams. We'd probably have a much healthier population if we required regular check-ups before letting you have painkillers like aspirin/ibuprofen too.
 
2012-12-14 02:03:28 PM

Corvus: As a guy. you can buy condoms over the counter, you can buy them in bathrooms, you can get them free from lots of places.

But when it's women contraception it's OMG!!! We have to make sure people can't just buy them and we have to make sure religious groups aren't offended.

It's double standard BS.


The double standard is even worse when you realize men can buy jock straps over the counter!
 
2012-12-14 02:03:43 PM

lennavan: qorkfiend: Now we get into the fun part; would the doctor's visit for what is now an optional medication be covered under insurance? I doubt it.

Of course it would. Pap-smears and general check-ups wouldn't suddenly become unnecessary. During your general check-up, you can ask about a whole slew of things including OTC medicines and insurance will still cover it.

I'm honestly surprised to see the ACOG support BC being OTC. I always viewed it as they hold BC over your head because otherwise you wouldn't go in for annual exams. We'd probably have a much healthier population if we required regular check-ups before letting you have painkillers like aspirin/ibuprofen too.


Alright, that makes sense. Silly me.
 
2012-12-14 02:04:58 PM
SuperTramp: Hey Nabb1, could you hand the microphone to your uterus for a minute?

Dr Dreidel: That's a stupid argument.


Did I ask you? I asked Nabb1 because he seems REALLY invested in this issue.
 
2012-12-14 02:06:34 PM
This will be the new norm from the GOP in the not too distant future. There will also be an outreach and amnesty program for Hispanics supported by the GOP.
 
2012-12-14 02:07:12 PM

Gulper Eel: sweetmelissa31: Is this a ploy to get people to pay more out of pocket for birth control?

The current state of affairs is a ploy to force women to pay for unnecessary doctor's visits.

Some of the really greedy doctors will add a pelvic exam to the bill regardless of its necessity, even though it's irrelevant to the issue of birth control.

Imagine if a male farker had to get a prostate exam and erectile function test in order to get a prescription for condoms.

Holding women's health hostage to intrusive medical procedures is okay long as it's not Republicans doing it, right?


Or, you know, women can actually have very bad and dramatic reactions to hormones and it's a good idea to have a doctor make sure you don't end up sicker than a dog.

But yeah. It's about money.

/I'm sure a lot of doctors are scamming people--hell, my doctor outright told me at one point that prescribing medications for ear infections is basically just so people feel like they're getting their money's worth--but this is not one of those times. Hormones are really, really bad things to fark up.
 
2012-12-14 02:07:18 PM

SuperTramp: SuperTramp: Hey Nabb1, could you hand the microphone to your uterus for a minute?

Dr Dreidel: That's a stupid argument.


Did I ask you? I asked Nabb1 because he seems REALLY invested in this issue.


So? If his lack of a uterus invalidates his opinion, then so does mine. I ain't having that.

// this is the millenium of Aftermath, so give me one more platinum plaque and fark that...
 
2012-12-14 02:08:32 PM
Bobby has been working hard since election day to position himself for 2016 as "the reasonable Republican".
 
2012-12-14 02:09:18 PM

HeartBurnKid: Nabb1: HeartBurnKid: They have their opinion, I have mine. I thought you Republican types were all about not blindly submitting to "experts"; what happened to that?

Try not to generalize and stereotype so much and the world may open up many other surprises for you.

Says the guy who's been going through this whole thread accusing everybody else of being hyper-partisan authoritarians.


Yeah, that made me do a double-take also. Has he even been reading his own posts?
 
2012-12-14 02:09:53 PM

Corvus: Bobby can try to set himself for a presidential all he wants but I doubt people will forget this:

[wonkroom.thinkprogress.org image 825x619]

$220 Million down the toilet because he refused to believe those elitist scientists.


It wa$n't that he didn't believe the $cienti$t$, it wa$ ju$t that hi$ advi$or$ from the private $ector made a much $tronger argument.
 
2012-12-14 02:11:24 PM

Corvus: As a guy. you can buy condoms over the counter, you can buy them in bathrooms, you can get them free from lots of places.

But when it's women contraception it's OMG!!! We have to make sure people can't just buy them and we have to make sure religious groups aren't offended.

It's double standard BS.


You can buy condoms OTC precisely because they don't have anywhere near the potential long-term serious consequences of OBC. I can't believe you don't see this. As someone said earlier, the solution is to make OBC cheap/free and easy to get, not make it OTC. Guess who already does that? Planned Parenthood. Every day.
 
2012-12-14 02:11:58 PM

Citrate1007: Corvus: Bobby can try to set himself for a presidential all he wants but I doubt people will forget this:

[wonkroom.thinkprogress.org image 825x619]

$220 Million down the toilet because he refused to believe those elitist scientists.

It wa$n't that he didn't believe the $cienti$t$, it wa$ ju$t that hi$ advi$or$ from the private $ector made a much $tronger argument.


Probably along the lines of "Just think; when the water comes up like the scientists say, we'll have to buy new equipment to replace the equipment we just lost. That's jobs, Governor."
 
2012-12-14 02:13:28 PM

urbangirl: As someone said earlier, the solution is to make OBC cheap/free and easy to get, not make it OTC. Guess who already does that? Planned Parenthood. Every day.


look at you, wanting to control women for political reasons and furthermore
 
2012-12-14 02:16:10 PM

urbangirl: You can buy condoms OTC precisely because they don't have anywhere near the potential long-term serious consequences of OBC


What are the potential long-term serious consequences of BC?
 
2012-12-14 02:17:51 PM

SuperTramp: SuperTramp: Hey Nabb1, could you hand the microphone to your uterus for a minute?

Dr Dreidel: That's a stupid argument.


Did I ask you? I asked Nabb1 because he seems REALLY invested in this issue.


He's really invested because it's a perfect solution for conservatives. They get to make it look like they're pro-women (by increasing access to contraceptives and simultaneously exposing women as a whole to greater risk), it pushes government out of the way to allow every woman to be her own doctor (as wonderful and magical as that sounds), and it accomplishes their number one policy directive: don't do anything to piss off the religious assholes that make up their base. They get to polish their image while continuing to cater to the most backward and dangerous parts of the electorate. It would be smart if it wasn't so brazenly transparent.
 
2012-12-14 02:19:20 PM
Dr Dreidel:

So? If his lack of a uterus invalidates his opinion, then so does mine. I ain't having that.


WHY DOES HE HAVE SUCH A STRONG OPINION ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL FOR WOMEN?

// this is the millenium of Aftermath, so give me one more platinum plaque and fark that...

WTF?
 
2012-12-14 02:19:31 PM
BCP are hormones; they shouldn't be dispensed without care to the woman's health. The annual visit to the cooter dr. is to ensure nothing is amiss down there. BCP being prescription isn't some rightwing nutjob conspiracy to make access to BCP harder; it is a sound medical practice.
 
2012-12-14 02:20:03 PM

lennavan: urbangirl: You can buy condoms OTC precisely because they don't have anywhere near the potential long-term serious consequences of OBC

What are the potential long-term serious consequences of BC?


There's a link provided in this very thread.
 
2012-12-14 02:21:13 PM
HBC should be prescription only. Too many idjits take OTC pills as though they were nothing; HBC has significant issues, ranging from DVT dangers to emotional issues.

Also - from the perspective of a transwoman, far too many people can't tell the difference between progesterone and estrogen. And progesterone is f*cking dangerous for those that have no natural source of it.
 
2012-12-14 02:22:01 PM
un4gvn666

He's really invested because it's a perfect solution for conservatives. They get to make it look like they're pro-women (by increasing access to contraceptives and simultaneously exposing women as a whole to greater risk), it pushes government out of the way to allow every woman to be her own doctor (as wonderful and magical as that sounds), and it accomplishes their number one policy directive: don't do anything to piss off the religious assholes that make up their base. They get to polish their image while continuing to cater to the most backward and dangerous parts of the electorate. It would be smart if it wasn't so brazenly transparent.


Thank you!!
 
2012-12-14 02:23:13 PM

jjorsett: I wonder how many people who want to "legalize drugs" (as I do) here on Fark are on the side of keeping some meds prescription-only. If you're prepared to let people alter their consciousness and potentially destroy their health and lives with one substance, you may as well extend the privilege to all of them.


No. There are very good reasons to keep some medications prescription only, even if you want recreational drugs to be legal (as I do). We are already seeing issues with bacterial infections developing resistance to antibiotics, creating MRSA, residtant strains of Gonorrhea, etc.

During the 2001-2002 Anthrax scares, every idiot under the sun decided they needed Cipro, just in case Truth or Consequences, NM was going to be terrorized. I don't particularly care if some dude develops a tolerance for meth or adderall as it doesn't really do me any harm. That dude running around spewing a super bug because he takes Zeftera every time he gets the sniffles, or thinks that Cipro will clear up his athlete's foot can cause me harm.
 
2012-12-14 02:23:35 PM

SuperTramp: WHY DOES HE HAVE SUCH A STRONG OPINION ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL FOR WOMEN?


Don't know and don't really care. I have a strong opinion about BC/abortion as well, but I am biologically male since birth with a penis to show for it - WAT DO?

// you're saying his opinion is invalid because he lacks a functioning uterus AND is on the "wrong" side of the debate?

SuperTramp: // this is the millenium of Aftermath, so give me one more platinum plaque and fark that...

WTF?


Forgot About Dre (NSFW lyrics)
 
2012-12-14 02:23:38 PM

un4gvn666: SuperTramp: SuperTramp: Hey Nabb1, could you hand the microphone to your uterus for a minute?

Dr Dreidel: That's a stupid argument.


Did I ask you? I asked Nabb1 because he seems REALLY invested in this issue.

He's really invested because it's a perfect solution for conservatives. They get to make it look like they're pro-women (by increasing access to contraceptives and simultaneously exposing women as a whole to greater risk), it pushes government out of the way to allow every woman to be her own doctor (as wonderful and magical as that sounds), and it accomplishes their number one policy directive: don't do anything to piss off the religious assholes that make up their base. They get to polish their image while continuing to cater to the most backward and dangerous parts of the electorate. It would be smart if it wasn't so brazenly transparent.


It's still pretty smart, as the people he's talking to don't care about the transparency. Jindal's position is the perfect line to walk on the moderate right side of the issue; personal responsibility, no government interference with doctors, no interference from pharmacists, access to birth control, and as you've pointed out, completely avoids the religious aspect of the debate. All of the downsides - cost and potential health risks - are already secondary in Republican thinking.
 
2012-12-14 02:26:15 PM

Nabb1: what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees. Link


If it is or is not implementable it is still a genius statement on his part as it effectively disarms the entire thing and opens dialog and soundly places him in the not a nut category. He needs to do that as he has been painted as a nut.
 
2012-12-14 02:27:50 PM

un4gvn666: lennavan: urbangirl: You can buy condoms OTC precisely because they don't have anywhere near the potential long-term serious consequences of OBC

What are the potential long-term serious consequences of BC?

There's a link provided in this very thread.


The long-term serious consequence of BC is it reduces cancer? I assumed by potential long-term serious consequence she meant a negative consequence.

The use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) for five years or more decreases the risk of ovarian cancer in later life by 50%.[43] Combined oral contraceptive use reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 40% and the risk of endometrial cancer by 50% compared to never users. The risk reduction increases with duration of use, with an 80% reduction in risk for both ovarian and endometrial cancer with use for more than 10 years. The risk reduction for both ovarian and endometrial cancer persists for at least 20 years.[20]

Oh, right there the negative side effect is, blood clots.

The risk of thromboembolism varies with different types of birth control pills. For the second-generation pills (with an estrogen content less than 50 μg), the risk of thromboembolism is relatively small, with an incidence of approximately 15 per 100,000 users per year, compared with 5 per 100,000 per year among non-pregnant women

Well less risk of cancer, higher risk of blood clot, let's weigh the pros and cons, shall we?

Overall, use of oral contraceptives appears to slightly reduce all-cause mortality, with a rate ratio for overall mortality of 0.87 (confidence interval: 0.79-0.96) when comparing ever-users of OCs with never-users.[65]

You're right, women might start using BC and lowering their mortality rate. Truly scary.
 
2012-12-14 02:29:33 PM

lennavan: urbangirl: You can buy condoms OTC precisely because they don't have anywhere near the potential long-term serious consequences of OBC

What are the potential long-term serious consequences of BC?


Raise cholesterol, lower blood pressure to dangerous levels, blood clots, gallstones, clinical depression. Can cause serious problems if you're prone to cardio-vascular disease. Probably more that I don't know about. Not to mention if you happen to already be pregnant, you can really mess up the fetus.

This is not like an allergic rash from a condom that will go away in a few days. This is life-threatening stuff.
 
2012-12-14 02:32:56 PM

urbangirl: lennavan: urbangirl: You can buy condoms OTC precisely because they don't have anywhere near the potential long-term serious consequences of OBC

What are the potential long-term serious consequences of BC?

Raise cholesterol, lower blood pressure to dangerous levels, blood clots, gallstones, clinical depression. Can cause serious problems if you're prone to cardio-vascular disease. Probably more that I don't know about. Not to mention if you happen to already be pregnant, you can really mess up the fetus.

This is not like an allergic rash from a condom that will go away in a few days. This is life-threatening stuff.


Honestly, I don't know why I bothered. lennavan is just doing the same selective reading routine he pulled in the "Marco Rubio refuses to stand up to social conservatives on the age of the Earth" thread. It's why I have him farkied as "Rubio at least deserves an A for effort!"
 
2012-12-14 02:35:31 PM

BSABSVR: There are very good reasons to keep some medications prescription only, even if you want recreational drugs to be legal (as I do). We are already seeing issues with bacterial infections developing resistance to antibiotics, creating MRSA, residtant strains of Gonorrhea, etc.

During the 2001-2002 Anthrax scares, every idiot under the sun decided they needed Cipro, just in case Truth or Consequences, NM was going to be terrorized. I don't particularly care if some dude develops a tolerance for meth or adderall as it doesn't really do me any harm. That dude running around spewing a super bug because he takes Zeftera every time he gets the sniffles, or thinks that Cipro will clear up his athlete's foot can cause me harm.


Birth control may have side effects, but it won't become useless if overprescribed. It's not like sperm can adapt to the Pill and become supersperm.
 
2012-12-14 02:35:38 PM

urbangirl: Not to mention if you happen to already be pregnant, you can really mess up the fetus.


There are lots of ways to mess up a fetus if you are already pregnant. Should alcohol be prescription only, so long as you pass a pregnancy test?

urbangirl: This is not like an allergic rash from a condom that will go away in a few days. This is life-threatening stuff.


No, it's really not. High cholesterol will be found in your general checkup. You can survive until then. So will low blood pressure. If blood pressure gets too low, you'll be dizzy. If you're dizzy for a few days, you'll probably head to the doctor's office. It worsens depression in already depressed people. Those people are already seeing psychiatrists and if they're not, the OBGYN isn't the right place to force them to start.

The sum of all of your life-threatening things and we still have a lower mortality rate for women on BC. It's not so scary.
 
2012-12-14 02:37:39 PM

lennavan: un4gvn666: lennavan: urbangirl: You can buy condoms OTC precisely because they don't have anywhere near the potential long-term serious consequences of OBC

What are the potential long-term serious consequences of BC?

There's a link provided in this very thread.

The long-term serious consequence of BC is it reduces cancer? I assumed by potential long-term serious consequence she meant a negative consequence.

The use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) for five years or more decreases the risk of ovarian cancer in later life by 50%.[43] Combined oral contraceptive use reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 40% and the risk of endometrial cancer by 50% compared to never users. The risk reduction increases with duration of use, with an 80% reduction in risk for both ovarian and endometrial cancer with use for more than 10 years. The risk reduction for both ovarian and endometrial cancer persists for at least 20 years.[20]

Oh, right there the negative side effect is, blood clots.

The risk of thromboembolism varies with different types of birth control pills. For the second-generation pills (with an estrogen content less than 50 μg), the risk of thromboembolism is relatively small, with an incidence of approximately 15 per 100,000 users per year, compared with 5 per 100,000 per year among non-pregnant women

Well less risk of cancer, higher risk of blood clot, let's weigh the pros and cons, shall we?

Overall, use of oral contraceptives appears to slightly reduce all-cause mortality, with a rate ratio for overall mortality of 0.87 (confidence interval: 0.79-0.96) when comparing ever-users of OCs with never-users.[65]

You're right, women might start using BC and lowering their mortality rate. Truly scary.


The average woman might, yeah. The atypical woman, on the other hand, will be completely farked up by them meds. It's not a situation we design to the mean case - we decide based on the experiences of the outliers.
 
2012-12-14 02:37:50 PM

un4gvn666: Honestly, I don't know why I bothered. lennavan is just doing the same selective reading routine he pulled in the "Marco Rubio refuses to stand up to social conservatives on the age of the Earth" thread. It's why I have him farkied as "Rubio at least deserves an A for effort!"


You do realize the linked article references how the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agrees with me, right?

Are they also doing selective reading and you totally know better what with your MD/PhD and all?
 
2012-12-14 02:40:22 PM

urbangirl: Raise cholesterol, lower blood pressure to dangerous levels, blood clots, gallstones, clinical depression. Can cause serious problems if you're prone to cardio-vascular disease. Probably more that I don't know about. Not to mention if you happen to already be pregnant, you can really mess up the fetus.


Gosh, if it's that dangerous what have we been doing it handing it out so freely these past 60 years?
 
2012-12-14 02:41:52 PM

Gulper Eel: urbangirl: Raise cholesterol, lower blood pressure to dangerous levels, blood clots, gallstones, clinical depression. Can cause serious problems if you're prone to cardio-vascular disease. Probably more that I don't know about. Not to mention if you happen to already be pregnant, you can really mess up the fetus.

Gosh, if it's that dangerous what have we been doing it handing it out so freely these past 60 years?


By "freely" you mean "in consultation with a doctor", right?
 
2012-12-14 02:43:38 PM

Exception Collection: The average woman might, yeah. The atypical woman, on the other hand, will be completely farked up by them meds. It's not a situation we design to the mean case - we decide based on the experiences of the outliers.


Yeah that's just completely not true. People are allergic to ibuprofen and may actually die from taking it. Ibuprofen is OTC. The atypical woman might have kidney problems and not know it. If she takes asprin, she's in some deep shiat. I can continue this forever with things you just accept as okay.

I'm sure you know where this will end up but let's play anyway. I have a new drug I want to be OTC. Here are its side effects:

stomach pain, tenderness, bloating,
constipation or diarrhea;
green-colored vomit;
blood in the stools;
unusual weakness;
seizure (convulsions);
twitching or uncontrolled muscle movements; or
fever, fast or slow heart rate.

Prescription or OTC? You'll never answer because you can actually feel the hammer ready to drop if you do.
 
2012-12-14 02:47:29 PM

lennavan: un4gvn666: Honestly, I don't know why I bothered. lennavan is just doing the same selective reading routine he pulled in the "Marco Rubio refuses to stand up to social conservatives on the age of the Earth" thread. It's why I have him farkied as "Rubio at least deserves an A for effort!"

You do realize the linked article references how the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agrees with me, right?

Are they also doing selective reading and you totally know better what with your MD/PhD and all?


The recommendation by ACOG to make contraceptives OTC would not exist if there were not significant barriers to access, which themselves would not exist if conservatives would get out of the way of Obamacare, stop attacking and defunding Planned Parenthood, and actually gave a shiat enough about women to make a strong effort towards increased access and availibility of HBC. The fact that that isn't likely to happen due to the prevalence of ignorance in our society is probably why they just threw up their hands and said "fark it, may as well make it OTC then."

Conservatives embracing a flawed and potentially hazardous solution to a problem they have created is not far off from the image of the snake eating its own tail, in that it's amusing and bewildering at the same time.
 
2012-12-14 02:49:13 PM

lennavan: Exception Collection: The average woman might, yeah. The atypical woman, on the other hand, will be completely farked up by them meds. It's not a situation we design to the mean case - we decide based on the experiences of the outliers.

Yeah that's just completely not true. People are allergic to ibuprofen and may actually die from taking it. Ibuprofen is OTC. The atypical woman might have kidney problems and not know it. If she takes asprin, she's in some deep shiat. I can continue this forever with things you just accept as okay.

I'm sure you know where this will end up but let's play anyway. I have a new drug I want to be OTC. Here are its side effects:

stomach pain, tenderness, bloating,
constipation or diarrhea;
green-colored vomit;
blood in the stools;
unusual weakness;
seizure (convulsions);
twitching or uncontrolled muscle movements; or
fever, fast or slow heart rate.

Prescription or OTC? You'll never answer because you can actually feel the hammer ready to drop if you do.


Completely banned by the FDA, unless it's a boner pill.
 
2012-12-14 02:49:13 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Well, I kind of thought the same thing, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists thinks its safe enough to give OTC. Which kind of sways me to think it's probably okay. It would be behind the counter, and pharmacists would be there to answer questions and help them with the choices (ideally).

But yes, I think it should be drop dead free no matter what kind of healthcare system we have.


TANSTAAFL. (TANSTAFHC?) Anyway, don't they already do the behind-the-counter thing with Plan B?

Gulper Eel: Birth control may have side effects, but it won't become useless if overprescribed. It's not like sperm can adapt to the Pill and become supersperm.


If Robert Kirkman ever wants to do another comic series after The Walking Dead, I hope it's Supersperm.
 
2012-12-14 02:57:43 PM
This is pretty much a typical Jindal statement. Makes a sort of decent political point of sorts, but stumbles at the goal line by being incredibly ignorant of basic science.

Should BC be easily accessible? Yes. So his... general theme has its heart in the right place.

Should people be allowed to buy and self-dose human-compatible hormones? Hell to the no. That shiat can fark you up incredibly hard if you fark up the dosage, and the probability of someone self-prescribing a medication farking up the dosage is somewhere between 100% and 300% (they'll somehow manage to fark up the dosage three times just to fark with statisticians). So it's a terrible, terrible idea to OTC any medication that can't be safely accidentally doubled a couple of times or ignored for a week without major adverse effects.

Basically, this is another "volcano monitoring" comment, where yes the general point is fine (that we should scrutinize our research expenditures as much as our other expenditures) but the specific point is stupid (there are several major potentially active volcanoes in the US in populated areas).

Nabb1: Denying women the option of OTC birth control when doctors are okay with it and demanding they have to go through Planned Parenthood/Obamacare is nothing more than a political agenda.


If your doctor is OK with hormone treatments being sold over the counter, you should probably alert the AMA.
 
2012-12-14 03:00:52 PM

qorkfiend: By "freely" you mean "in consultation with a doctor", right?


By "in consultation with" you mean "given a cursory once-over and rubber-stamped by", right?
 
2012-12-14 03:01:37 PM

un4gvn666: The recommendation by ACOG to make contraceptives OTC would not exist if there were not significant barriers to access


You should read the ACOG recommendation. It agrees with what I was saying before and clearly demonstrates you did not read it. (OC = Oral Contraceptive)

Safety of Over-the-Counter Medications
No drug or intervention is completely without risk of harm. For example, common nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, such as aspirin, have documented adverse effects, including gastrointestinal bleeding. These effects may occur even at doses used for prophylaxis of cardiovascular disease (11). Additionally, over-the-counter use of acetaminophen is linked to serious liver damage (12). Safety concerns about OCs frequently focus on the increased risk of venous thromboembolism. However, it is important to understand that the rate of venous thromboembolism for OC users is extremely low (3-10.22/10,000 women-years) (13, 14) and to put this risk in context by recognizing the much greater risk of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy (5-20/10,000 women-years) or in the postpartum period (40-65/10,000 women-years) (14). Overall, the consensus is that OC use is safe (15-17).

They said "OC use is safe." How did you summarize it?

urbangirl: This is life-threatening stuff.


Right.

You know what else ACOG said?

Both studies showed that in cases of discrepancy, women were more likely to report contraindications than were health care providers. A study conducted in the United Kingdom replicated the findings that women take a more conservative approach

You're actually more conservative if you're in charge of yourself, rather than under the care of doctor. If you're so worried about these side effects, the data shows you're more likely to do something about it if you're not under the care of a doctor.
 
2012-12-14 03:02:26 PM

lennavan: urbangirl: This is life-threatening stuff.


lennavan: un4gvn666: The recommendation by ACOG to make contraceptives OTC would not exist if there were not significant barriers to access


Okay, that was amazingly stupid of me. I apologize to you both, that was not intentional.
 
2012-12-14 03:03:22 PM

Gulper Eel: urbangirl: Raise cholesterol, lower blood pressure to dangerous levels, blood clots, gallstones, clinical depression. Can cause serious problems if you're prone to cardio-vascular disease. Probably more that I don't know about. Not to mention if you happen to already be pregnant, you can really mess up the fetus.

Gosh, if it's that dangerous what have we been doing it handing it out so freely these past 60 years?


So freely that you have to consult with your doctor, who reviews your other medications and your medical history before writing a 'scrip, and then have a follow-up appointment 6 months later (maximum) even if you have no problems to review the 'scrip renewal, and are instructed to call back much earlier at the first sign of a long list of adverse effects.

It's handed out about as "freely" as steroid treatments for allergy suppression of weight gain... appropriately, since those are also human-compatible hormones.

The fact that you can generally get a prescription for a drug if you actually have the condition it treats is not the same as the drug's distribution being uncontrolled. If you have insomnia you're not going to have any trouble getting a prescription for ambien, either.
 
2012-12-14 03:05:03 PM
Hormonal birth control is serious medicine and should be administered under a doctor's care. Most women require some tuning to find a protocol that works for their body. No clue about how this has somehow become an issue for Republicans in year 2012.
 
2012-12-14 03:11:33 PM

carpbrain: Hormonal birth control is serious medicine and should be administered under a doctor's care.


OBGYNs say otherwise.
 
2012-12-14 03:13:16 PM

lennavan: You're actually more conservative if you're in charge of yourself, rather than under the care of doctor.


Mustn't be telling the key voter demographics that the primary person responsible for their health care is looking at them in the mirror.
 
2012-12-14 03:14:09 PM
If women could buy birth control without a prescription, he argues, employers would not have to pay for it against their moral objections, and Democrats could no longer accuse Republicans of being anti-birth control.

FAIL. The fact that they want birth control to be OTC because they have moral objections to it and thus don't want to "pay" for it is in fact "anti-birth control" and "anti-woman".
 
2012-12-14 03:20:06 PM
Sounds like somebody wants to be president!
 
2012-12-14 03:38:04 PM

Elandriel: My wife was on 4 different kinds of oral contraceptives, one after the other for 3 month courses each, before she gave up and went off the pill -- the hormonal imbalances were impossible for her to deal with and we almost ended up divorced because there was no balance at all and we were fighting over everything. I did my best to be supportive but she was absolutely manic all the time over everything, no matter how inconsequential, and I was the scapegoat. Please hold your "lol women" comments because she was not herself in any sense.

Making an untrained woman personally in charge of ingesting medicine that has enormous hormonal change is hilariously irresponsible. People are still so damn hung up on this being about not getting pregnant, instead of the host of other effects BC pills have on a woman from cyst prevention to cycle regulation. Making it OTC divorces the process of consultation and medical expertise from it, and endangers women everywhere.

Also it is another huge payout to insurance industries who were only just recently mandated to cover BC. So.


THIS

I've known women who had more or less the same experience your wife did. They had to go through several brands/strengths to get one that didn't turn them manic. Hell, when I was in high school, most of the girls at my school were on birth control for various reasons ranging from sex to lighter periods/less cramping. One of my classmates had her mom take her to the doctor to change her birth control prescription when she would start bawling uncontrollably at random commercials. I don't mean sad commercials I mean chocolate bar commercials, diaper commercials etc.

How would girls even know what brand to ask for if it was OTC?

"Hello, I'd like some um... birth control please"

"Okay which one?"

"Um... that one in the blue box over there?"
 
2012-12-14 03:48:50 PM

Gulper Eel: BSABSVR: There are very good reasons to keep some medications prescription only, even if you want recreational drugs to be legal (as I do). We are already seeing issues with bacterial infections developing resistance to antibiotics, creating MRSA, residtant strains of Gonorrhea, etc.

During the 2001-2002 Anthrax scares, every idiot under the sun decided they needed Cipro, just in case Truth or Consequences, NM was going to be terrorized. I don't particularly care if some dude develops a tolerance for meth or adderall as it doesn't really do me any harm. That dude running around spewing a super bug because he takes Zeftera every time he gets the sniffles, or thinks that Cipro will clear up his athlete's foot can cause me harm.

Birth control may have side effects, but it won't become useless if overprescribed. It's not like sperm can adapt to the Pill and become supersperm.


No, but there is verifiable harm that can come from taking the wrong form or dose of HBC. Does that harm outweigh the benefits of making it OTC?

But I think you can think that some drugs should be OTC (that currently are not) and some drugs should still require an extra step to get, and that recreational drugs should be legal or decriminalized without being "OMG LOOK AT MY BADASS STATIST JACKBOOTS", or being a hypocrite, which Nabb1 and jjorsett seem to be implying.
 
2012-12-14 04:00:40 PM

hillbillypharmacist: what_now: I'm torn on the prescription birth control issue because not every woman can afford to see a gynecologist.

Exactly. While having OTC birth control might be the best solution right now, what we really need is single payer health care.

Exactly, exactly. If I ran the US, no woman would ever pay a damn dime for BC, and she would have access to a gynecologist to consult about it.


BC should be free and easily accessible to anyone who wants it.
 
2012-12-14 04:00:43 PM

AgentKGB: Making an untrained woman personally in charge of ingesting medicine that has enormous hormonal change is hilariously irresponsible. People are still so damn hung up on this being about not getting pregnant, instead of the host of other effects BC pills have on a woman from cyst prevention to cycle regulation. Making it OTC divorces the process of consultation and medical expertise from it, and endangers women everywhere.

Also it is another huge payout to insurance industries who were only just recently mandated to cover BC. So.

THIS

I've known women who had more or less the same experience your wife did.


Get this - an untrained woman knows she is untrained and is more likely to report and follow-up on minor side effects. If she is under the care of a doctor, they are more likely to ignore it.

But don't let facts get in your way!
 
2012-12-14 04:13:16 PM
Making birth control over the counter is a fast-track to watching a lot of women with heart problems Die. So thanks, Bobbie.

Additionally, it ensures 100% that birth control will not be covered by Any insurance plan, as insurance doesn't cover OTC medications, virtually ensuring that a greater majority of women won't have access to it. Don't for a second think that Jindal is trying to turn coats here, his agenda hasn't changed.
 
2012-12-14 04:44:06 PM

lennavan: AgentKGB: Making an untrained woman personally in charge of ingesting medicine that has enormous hormonal change is hilariously irresponsible. People are still so damn hung up on this being about not getting pregnant, instead of the host of other effects BC pills have on a woman from cyst prevention to cycle regulation. Making it OTC divorces the process of consultation and medical expertise from it, and endangers women everywhere.

Also it is another huge payout to insurance industries who were only just recently mandated to cover BC. So.

THIS

I've known women who had more or less the same experience your wife did.

Get this - an untrained woman knows she is untrained and is more likely to report and follow-up on minor side effects. If she is under the care of a doctor, they are more likely to ignore it.

But don't let facts get in your way!


Report to who?
 
2012-12-14 04:52:57 PM
How credible is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists? Are they on the up and up?
 
2012-12-14 04:54:03 PM

Kazan: what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.

what she said


I don't see any religious objection to paying for insurance that covers hormonal monitoring. The religious object to covering birth control, not its side effects.
 
2012-12-14 04:58:24 PM

un4gvn666: lennavan: AgentKGB: Making an untrained woman personally in charge of ingesting medicine that has enormous hormonal change is hilariously irresponsible. People are still so damn hung up on this being about not getting pregnant, instead of the host of other effects BC pills have on a woman from cyst prevention to cycle regulation. Making it OTC divorces the process of consultation and medical expertise from it, and endangers women everywhere.

Also it is another huge payout to insurance industries who were only just recently mandated to cover BC. So.

THIS

I've known women who had more or less the same experience your wife did.

Get this - an untrained woman knows she is untrained and is more likely to report and follow-up on minor side effects. If she is under the care of a doctor, they are more likely to ignore it.

But don't let facts get in your way!

Report to who?


Oh, to the store manager where she bought them at probably.
 
2012-12-14 05:11:03 PM

un4gvn666: lennavan: AgentKGB: Making an untrained woman personally in charge of ingesting medicine that has enormous hormonal change is hilariously irresponsible. People are still so damn hung up on this being about not getting pregnant, instead of the host of other effects BC pills have on a woman from cyst prevention to cycle regulation. Making it OTC divorces the process of consultation and medical expertise from it, and endangers women everywhere.

Also it is another huge payout to insurance industries who were only just recently mandated to cover BC. So.

THIS

I've known women who had more or less the same experience your wife did.

Get this - an untrained woman knows she is untrained and is more likely to report and follow-up on minor side effects. If she is under the care of a doctor, they are more likely to ignore it.

But don't let facts get in your way!

Report to who?


Um, I guess the doctor that she's not going to.

/Wow, that flaw got pointed out quick!
 
2012-12-14 05:55:39 PM

Nabb1: hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: So, you would have the government continue to control what a woman does with her body for the political sake of a larger entitlement agenda?

The only control in that scenario would be by a physician. And they aren't the government.

I'm not a straw man.

Are you or are you not in favor of making birth control medication available OTC? If the medical community is in favor, then the resistance to it is going to largely be political, which means by restricting women's access by legally requiring a prescription that doctors by and large believe is unnecessary from a medical standpoint, then you are placing a barrier to women that is based on a political agenda.


Thus started the liberal war on women.
 
2012-12-14 06:00:39 PM

lennavan: Exception Collection: The average woman might, yeah. The atypical woman, on the other hand, will be completely farked up by them meds. It's not a situation we design to the mean case - we decide based on the experiences of the outliers.

Yeah that's just completely not true. People are allergic to ibuprofen and may actually die from taking it. Ibuprofen is OTC. The atypical woman might have kidney problems and not know it. If she takes asprin, she's in some deep shiat. I can continue this forever with things you just accept as okay.

I'm sure you know where this will end up but let's play anyway. I have a new drug I want to be OTC. Here are its side effects:

stomach pain, tenderness, bloating,
constipation or diarrhea;
green-colored vomit;
blood in the stools;
unusual weakness;
seizure (convulsions);
twitching or uncontrolled muscle movements; or
fever, fast or slow heart rate.

Prescription or OTC? You'll never answer because you can actually feel the hammer ready to drop if you do.


Its over the counter. You can buy them at Mcdonalds sometimes. Its call the McRib.
 
2012-12-14 06:00:43 PM
While I like the fact that more women would have access, I'm concerned. I had serious side effects to mine and it took quite a few changes in my prescription before we found one I could live with. Messing with hormones is a bad idea without a doctor's supervision.
 
2012-12-14 06:07:43 PM

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.


This and even if your basic orthotricycleen WAS safe and predictable enough to be otc, what about all the other options? Should the next generation of bc be forced to compete with ortho while being prescriptions based or should it get a fast track to otc?

Both of those are bad options. Jindal is kicking the can down the road so he can keep the retard vote without vocally supporting them. He has made his anti-science mistakes in the past and is smart enough to take and keep his foot out of his mouth for a while prior to a run for higher office.
 
2012-12-14 06:12:06 PM

Nabb1: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Nabb1: what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees. Link

As I said above, read that a little more carefully, they base a whole ton of their findings on phone surveys and some pretty loosey-goosey assumptions.

There are side effects to any OTC medication with long term use. A concerned woman should obviously talk to her physician about such usage, but there is no reason to restrict access to birth control to prescription-only. The objections to this seem more political than scientific, to me, anyway.


And will one's religious boss be forced to pay for an appointment about that? And if so, what dilemma have we sorted out, exactly?

Feel free to carry that line of thinking out as far as you like. If it makes the religious employers look like they haven't a leg to stand on it is because their argument is inconsistent relevent to the various things their insurance plan will cover anyway.
 
2012-12-14 06:23:53 PM

Mr_Fabulous: sweetmelissa31: Is this a ploy to get people to pay more out of pocket for birth control?

I already do pay out-of-pocket for OTC birth control.

[t2.gstatic.com image 268x188]


When I was single the women payed.

pics1.ds-static.com
 
2012-12-14 06:56:09 PM

lennavan: Exception Collection: The average woman might, yeah. The atypical woman, on the other hand, will be completely farked up by them meds. It's not a situation we design to the mean case - we decide based on the experiences of the outliers.

Yeah that's just completely not true. People are allergic to ibuprofen and may actually die from taking it. Ibuprofen is OTC. The atypical woman might have kidney problems and not know it. If she takes asprin, she's in some deep shiat. I can continue this forever with things you just accept as okay.

I'm sure you know where this will end up but let's play anyway. I have a new drug I want to be OTC. Here are its side effects:

stomach pain, tenderness, bloating,
constipation or diarrhea;
green-colored vomit;
blood in the stools;
unusual weakness;
seizure (convulsions);
twitching or uncontrolled muscle movements; or
fever, fast or slow heart rate.

Prescription or OTC? You'll never answer because you can actually feel the hammer ready to drop if you do.


I said we design for outliers, not 100% perfection. I don't know the percentages, but yes a small percentage of people always have issues with certain meds. With the meds that are OTC, those side effects are either incredibly rare, require abuse-level dosages/ignoring clear warnings or not severe. HBC has severe side effects in a minority of women, at the therapeutic dose, more than x% of the time. Despite that, because of complications and issues with overly expensive and/or backwards-ass pharmacists, doctors and hospitals a larger portion of the populace would be saved via OTC HBC vs the current system. If HBC and access to it were almost free, it would be better to have it be prescription.
 
2012-12-14 07:05:07 PM

un4gvn666: lennavan: AgentKGB: Making an untrained woman personally in charge of ingesting medicine that has enormous hormonal change is hilariously irresponsible. People are still so damn hung up on this being about not getting pregnant, instead of the host of other effects BC pills have on a woman from cyst prevention to cycle regulation. Making it OTC divorces the process of consultation and medical expertise from it, and endangers women everywhere.

Also it is another huge payout to insurance industries who were only just recently mandated to cover BC. So.

THIS

I've known women who had more or less the same experience your wife did.

Get this - an untrained woman knows she is untrained and is more likely to report and follow-up on minor side effects. If she is under the care of a doctor, they are more likely to ignore it.

But don't let facts get in your way!

Report to who?


It is almost like he wants otc bc so that we can save a doctors apt but that women on it should see their doctors anyway.

Will my emplpyer pay for that apt?
 
2012-12-14 08:19:56 PM
Anderson recognizes that the kind of tax increases Obama proposes aren't going to impinge on his life materially, and he supports them philosophically. But he adds that he thinks Obama and other Democrats make being rich "sound like a bad thing," which he says is a mistake.

I don't recall much that's been said about rich people in general by democrats, maybe about a couple of people in particular.

I do recall some AM radio hosts making this claim. Loudly, and often. Almost repeating something at escalating volume makes it true.
 
2012-12-14 08:35:28 PM

vharshyde: Making birth control over the counter is a fast-track to watching a lot of women with heart problems Die. So thanks, Bobbie.

Additionally, it ensures 100% that birth control will not be covered by Any insurance plan, as insurance doesn't cover OTC medications, virtually ensuring that a greater majority of women won't have access to it. Don't for a second think that Jindal is trying to turn coats here, his agenda hasn't changed.


Sure, but on the other hand it would likely become cheaper and therefore more available. Maybe Bobbies idea would work for the wrong reasons. That almost sounds like a compromise.
 
2012-12-14 09:55:23 PM

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.


^ This
 
2012-12-14 10:34:43 PM
Still waiting to hear where an individual's sexual choices falls under the purview of government....
 
2012-12-14 10:36:16 PM

vharshyde: virtually ensuring that a greater majority of women won't have access to it.


When you say "access" what you really mean is "Free"

If it is sold OTC at CVS, I can access it. And i have a penis.
 
2012-12-14 10:48:04 PM
No it should not. There are risks, amd some women absolutely should not use it.


/100% pro choice.
 
2012-12-15 02:13:57 AM

o5iiawah: Still waiting to hear where an individual's sexual choices falls under the purview of government....


You are perhaps struck deaf when some Publican spews off about teh ghey?
 
2012-12-15 02:53:15 AM
But Jindal claims in his op-ed that the idea that Republicans are opposed to birth control is "hogwash."

Ah, well then that explains why they so often preach that we should teach abstinence-only sex ed.
 
2012-12-15 04:06:53 AM
As a woman with a blood clotting disorder, i disagree. You need to be under the care of a healthcare provider. Side effects, like DVT, can be deadly.
 
2012-12-15 04:21:57 AM
I remember once reading that people about a hundred years ago were up in arms about condoms being distributed because birth control was sinful. Look how far we've come in the realm of birth control!

I read recently that most women are able to fairly appropriately gauge the risk of using birth control for themselves, at least smokers and people with clotting disorders know they should not use hormonal birth control. This is good, but since the average American is overweight or obese, they might not be able to correctly gauge the appropriate dosage. Some people, particularly those who are quite obese don't have any idea how much they weigh which makes it hard for them to figure out how much hormonal birth control they would need even if they were given a dose by weight chart.

Still, I sort of prefer trying to get birth control covered by health insurance because not only is reproduction a health issue with some risk to dosing errors given that a whole new human or more can exist simply because of a dosing error, but theoretically with Obamacare, more poor people will have access to health care and having birth control covered in general health care would be cheaper than buying it over the counter. I would expect OTC birth control to have a price premium on them especially given that the name brands will probably go on the shelves first and have a monopoly for at least a couple years in OTC use. OTC birth control is not going to be cheap, it will more than likely be more expensive than it is a a prescription drug with no prescription coverage and it would likely have the added hassle of technically requiring ID to purchase like anything that has pseudoephedrine in it to make sure minors (who will likely need it as much as any adult would) don't have access to it.

I think it makes sense to somehow eventually divorce health care benefits from employment as a solution to the employer not wanting to pay for their employee's "sinful ways." Single payer would have accomplished that.

Why exactly does an employer get to dictate their religious preferences on their employee's healthcare when the employee is actually paying the majority of the cost? The employer is not covering the deductibles or the routine co-pays and other associated fees, they're typically sharing the cost of a portion of the insurance premium. Whether employers want to admit it, directly or indirectly, they will be paying for their employee's birth control if the employee wants birth control. Given that it's been pretty much agreed by insurance companies that female birth control is covered without cost, how exactly are the employers paying for birth control for their employee anyway if it's going to be freely provided through all insurance?

As for church run school and hospital employees, if they don't want to provide agency provided health coverage that has birth control in it, they could offer the option to opt into traditional health insurance instead of the "church program" that way they don't have to provide birth control directly through their offices. Then there won't be anyone at a Catholic organization being forced to write a scrip for Ortho Tri-Cyclen. Their employees can instead go off campus for their health care, and non-Catholics who happen to be employed at a Catholic organizations won't be denied their preference to use birth control. From what I understand, most Catholics in America use birth control anyway.

I do think the whole religious freedom argument against providing birth control in health care is a little ludicrous, you won't generally see such an argument applied to other religious practices. For example: an employer isn't going to take an employee to lunch with the offer to buy just drinks or dessert for the meal and then demand that the employee not eat the appetizer which doesn't align with the employer's religious based food restrictions. The employer's not paying for the whole meal, so why should they be able to say what the employee eats? Sure, it might be socially proper if the employee didn't order what their employer's religion is offended by and eat it in front of them. If the employer's not paying for all of the food, they shouldn't be able to dictate what the employee eats. Generally an employer's going to be realistic enough to know that not everyone in his employ is a member of his faith or abides by the faith a different way than they do.

No one should be able to dictate religious beliefs on other people, that's not how freedom of religion works. People worship how they want, they don't get to dictate how others worship, what rules in the faith everyone should follow or if they do worship at all.
 
2012-12-15 05:38:18 AM

Nabb1: qorkfiend: Question: does making birth control available without a prescription remove the need for health insurance to get involved?

I ask for two reasons. One, it would probably end the messy debate over health insurance from groups with religious affiliations. Two, it could open up a new can of worms as costs are no longer offset by health insurance.

What I'm driving at here is, if birth control is OTC, what's to stop an anti-BC pharmacy owner from charging $100 per dose that can't be billed to your insurance?

Most insurance does not cover OTC medication. If it's OTC, then it will come in a slick packaged box somewhere on the aisle near the Advil or whatever else and not be locked up in the pharmacy (unless tweakers figure out how to cook BC into meth). There are some birth control pills that cost as little as $8-10 per month, which is less than a box of condoms.



Are there medical reasons other than birth control? If so should not insurance cover the medication?

(much like all the other prescription turned OTC the price goes up since insurance won't cover it)

In the end, the price would go up, it would be less used than currently. Anecdotal evidence isn't much evidence but it is what I have, I had female friends prior to ADA that had complained about BC costing $25+/month with insurance, if it went up beyond that as OTC the poor certainly wouldn't be using it as much. Less usage means more pregnancies, which then cost us all more money.

/as has been said we need to move to a single payer healthcare, that really is the only fix.
 
2012-12-15 06:06:53 AM
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. I mean it seems like a good idea but I'm worried about the unintended consequences. I'm not against it but let's ease in to it slowly... and carefully... because the negative side effects of those meds on women could be quite bad if they don't completely understand them.
 
2012-12-15 06:10:57 AM

Exception Collection: lennavan: un4gvn666: lennavan: urbangirl: You can buy condoms OTC precisely because they don't have anywhere near the potential long-term serious consequences of OBC

What are the potential long-term serious consequences of BC?

There's a link provided in this very thread.

The long-term serious consequence of BC is it reduces cancer? I assumed by potential long-term serious consequence she meant a negative consequence.

The use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) for five years or more decreases the risk of ovarian cancer in later life by 50%.[43] Combined oral contraceptive use reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 40% and the risk of endometrial cancer by 50% compared to never users. The risk reduction increases with duration of use, with an 80% reduction in risk for both ovarian and endometrial cancer with use for more than 10 years. The risk reduction for both ovarian and endometrial cancer persists for at least 20 years.[20]

Oh, right there the negative side effect is, blood clots.

The risk of thromboembolism varies with different types of birth control pills. For the second-generation pills (with an estrogen content less than 50 μg), the risk of thromboembolism is relatively small, with an incidence of approximately 15 per 100,000 users per year, compared with 5 per 100,000 per year among non-pregnant women

Well less risk of cancer, higher risk of blood clot, let's weigh the pros and cons, shall we?

Overall, use of oral contraceptives appears to slightly reduce all-cause mortality, with a rate ratio for overall mortality of 0.87 (confidence interval: 0.79-0.96) when comparing ever-users of OCs with never-users.[65]

You're right, women might start using BC and lowering their mortality rate. Truly scary.

The average woman might, yeah. The atypical woman, on the other hand, will be completely farked up by them meds. It's not a situation we design to the mean case - we decide based on the experiences of the outliers.


Also, when you are pulling statistics out of a control group it is easy to demonstrate how safe something can be....
 
2012-12-15 06:25:15 AM

randomjsa: I mean it seems like a good idea but I'm worried about the unintended consequences.


We have unintended consequences now: millions of women who could use birth control perfectly safely, but don't because of the time/money hassle. This, of course, can be solved by injecting (more) politics into a business transaction that shouldn't be necessary in the first place.
 
2012-12-15 07:15:13 AM
Soooo, birth control should be OTC and therefore not have to be covered as a prescription medication.

Maybe that works for some versions of the pill, however I can see poor usage statistics going up (mini-pill, you only have about a 12 hour window for a missed pill before you're unprotected from pregnancy) because people don't understand the difference between types of pills. Some pills are for people under a certain weight and won't work for people over that weight. Pills for larger folks may make smaller folks sick.

Also there are many more types of birth control than just the pill and many can't be OTC

Will the depo shot be covered by insurance? How about the implant? Or the coil, or an IUD?

Last time I looked up the cost of the implant in the US it was something like over $500 all together (med cost, insertion, removal, appointments). That's a BIG layout for most people, but it's three years of not having to worry about taking a pill on time. Yes, cheaper and easier in the long run, but in order to take advantage of that you need to be able to front the cost.
 
2012-12-15 08:44:22 AM
Bobby, just tryin' to get laid?
 
2012-12-15 09:19:03 AM

lennavan: AgentKGB: Making an untrained woman personally in charge of ingesting medicine that has enormous hormonal change is hilariously irresponsible. People are still so damn hung up on this being about not getting pregnant, instead of the host of other effects BC pills have on a woman from cyst prevention to cycle regulation. Making it OTC divorces the process of consultation and medical expertise from it, and endangers women everywhere.

Also it is another huge payout to insurance industries who were only just recently mandated to cover BC. So.

THIS

I've known women who had more or less the same experience your wife did.

Get this - an untrained woman knows she is untrained and is more likely to report and follow-up on minor side effects. If she is under the care of a doctor, they are more likely to ignore it.

But don't let facts get in your way!


She's more likely to report to the doctor she didn't see in the first place? 0:) Or to show up in the ER at 3 am in a mad panic and end up with a bill she can't afford?
 
2012-12-15 10:09:51 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: o5iiawah: Still waiting to hear where an individual's sexual choices falls under the purview of government....

You are perhaps struck deaf when some Publican spews off about teh ghey?


is being gay illegal?

Government should have no definition of marriage - at least not at the federal level. The tax code should show no preference towards or married or single individuals - that is if you believe in the whole "Equal protection under the law" thing....
 
2012-12-15 11:09:14 AM
I think once you factor in things like alcohol, cigarettes and mcdonalds the idea of not letting birth control be otc is a little ridiculous. I say that as someone who had both severe depression and a breast tumor (not cancerous) as a result of taking birth control. If doctors say it is ok then i find it rather ridiculous to argue them like we here on fark know more.
 
2012-12-15 12:31:33 PM

Nabb1: I think it's a good idea. Also, most health insurance doesn't cover OTC medication, so that would solve that issue, too.


the irs will let you deduct, if you itemize of course.
 
2012-12-15 02:17:36 PM
Isn't birth control already OTC in parts of Europe? How's it work there?
 
2012-12-15 03:11:08 PM

o5iiawah: vharshyde: virtually ensuring that a greater majority of women won't have access to it.

When you say "access" what you really mean is "Free"

If it is sold OTC at CVS, I can access it. And i have a penis.


nakedphilologist.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-15 03:29:47 PM

Dr Dreidel: SuperTramp: Hey Nabb1, could you hand the microphone to your uterus for a minute?

That's a stupid argument. I'm not planning to have kids, does that make my opinions about education moot? I'm not gay, so my feelings on marriage equality are null & void? I'm not rich, so my views on the top 3 brackets don't matter (actually, there are many people that believe this)? I live in America, so my feelings about her foreign policy don't matter?

// it comes into play when you tell a SPECIFIC person what to do with her uterus
// but I'll let you see for yourself how that applies to men and women


In regards to this thread, we have a lot of non-uterus-owners saying how safe hormonal birth control is, and a lot of uterus-owners telling their own personal experiences to the contrary. Who you gonna believe?
 
2012-12-15 05:04:53 PM

HighOnCraic: Dr Dreidel: SuperTramp: Hey Nabb1, could you hand the microphone to your uterus for a minute?

That's a stupid argument. I'm not planning to have kids, does that make my opinions about education moot? I'm not gay, so my feelings on marriage equality are null & void? I'm not rich, so my views on the top 3 brackets don't matter (actually, there are many people that believe this)? I live in America, so my feelings about her foreign policy don't matter?

// it comes into play when you tell a SPECIFIC person what to do with her uterus
// but I'll let you see for yourself how that applies to men and women

In regards to this thread, we have a lot of non-uterus-owners saying how safe hormonal birth control is, and a lot of uterus-owners telling their own personal experiences to the contrary. Who you gonna believe?


The Doctors
 
2012-12-15 07:52:43 PM

ace in your face: HighOnCraic: Dr Dreidel: SuperTramp: Hey Nabb1, could you hand the microphone to your uterus for a minute?

That's a stupid argument. I'm not planning to have kids, does that make my opinions about education moot? I'm not gay, so my feelings on marriage equality are null & void? I'm not rich, so my views on the top 3 brackets don't matter (actually, there are many people that believe this)? I live in America, so my feelings about her foreign policy don't matter?

// it comes into play when you tell a SPECIFIC person what to do with her uterus
// but I'll let you see for yourself how that applies to men and women

In regards to this thread, we have a lot of non-uterus-owners saying how safe hormonal birth control is, and a lot of uterus-owners telling their own personal experiences to the contrary. Who you gonna believe?

The Doctors


So the women who have had bad experiences are lying?

/It wouldn't be the first time a woman has lied to me on the internet . . .
 
2012-12-15 10:48:47 PM

o5iiawah: Lee Jackson Beauregard: o5iiawah: Still waiting to hear where an individual's sexual choices falls under the purview of government....

You are perhaps struck deaf when some Publican spews off about teh ghey?

is being gay illegal?


1) If the Bible thumpers in the Publican party ever get their way, it will be.

2) There are still sodomy laws on the books.
 
2012-12-16 05:58:54 AM

HighOnCraic: So the women who have had bad experiences are lying?


No, but the science shows they're vastly outnumbered by women who'd have no problem at all with OTC.
 
2012-12-16 06:41:16 AM
Cigarettes are readily available. Why not birth control?
 
2012-12-17 11:10:18 AM

un4gvn666: lennavan: AgentKGB: Making an untrained woman personally in charge of ingesting medicine that has enormous hormonal change is hilariously irresponsible. People are still so damn hung up on this being about not getting pregnant, instead of the host of other effects BC pills have on a woman from cyst prevention to cycle regulation. Making it OTC divorces the process of consultation and medical expertise from it, and endangers women everywhere.

Also it is another huge payout to insurance industries who were only just recently mandated to cover BC. So.

THIS

I've known women who had more or less the same experience your wife did.

Get this - an untrained woman knows she is untrained and is more likely to report and follow-up on minor side effects. If she is under the care of a doctor, they are more likely to ignore it.

But don't let facts get in your way!

Report to who?


A doctor you silly pants.
 
2012-12-17 11:13:25 AM

Smackledorfer: Report to who?

It is almost like he wants otc bc so that we can save a doctors apt but that women on it should see their doctors anyway.

Will my emplpyer pay for that apt?


That's an amazingly stupid comment. Yes, for 99+% of women OTC BC will be great and no need for a doctor appointment. If they want to ask questions, they can happily ask during their annual pap smear, which by the way their employer/insurance pays for.

You do realize aspirin works the exact same way. Aspirin is OTC, you don't need an appointment for it because it's safe for 99+% of the population. Anyone who experiences a side effect can go see a doctor. WHAT A HORRIBLE IDEA?!?!@#?!?
 
2012-12-17 11:16:50 AM

EmmaLou: As a woman with a blood clotting disorder, i disagree. You need to be under the care of a healthcare provider. Side effects, like DVT, can be deadly.


An entire organization of doctors disagrees with you. But your opinion still counts.

AgentKGB: She's more likely to report to the doctor she didn't see in the first place? 0:) Or to show up in the ER at 3 am in a mad panic and end up with a bill she can't afford?


Yes. I bet you think you're hilarious pointing out how that might be inconsistent logic. It might seem that way but your (and my) opinion is irrelevant, that's what actually happens.

You do realize, there is nothing a doctor can do to prevent your fictitious 3AM ER trip.
 
2012-12-17 03:13:35 PM

Gulper Eel: HighOnCraic: So the women who have had bad experiences are lying?

No, but the science shows they're vastly outnumbered by women who'd have no problem at all with OTC.


I'm sure that makes them feel a whole lot better.
 
Displayed 224 of 224 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report