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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 24 of 224 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report