Yet another barrier to pregnancy prevention

245

Comments

  • LloydXmas
    LloydXmas Posts: 7,539
    Is there anyway to delete a post that I commented on so I don't get anymore updates? Help is appreciated
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    BabaBooey1979 wrote:
    Is there anyway to delete a post that I commented on so I don't get anymore updates? Help is appreciated

    Can you just unsubscribe to the thread or something?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    scb wrote:
    For one thing, there's a difference between failing to allow for something and DISallowing it. I didn't say the system DISallowed it; I said it doesn't allow for it.

    I'm saying that the system, whose purpose is to provide a means for people to get healthcare, doen't work. Instead, it doesn't cover all pregnancy prevention medication, leaving it available only for women with an extra $50 to spare. It should be FACILITATING pregnancy prevention - that's what it's there for. (Plus, it's just stupid to not cover all contraception when, if a woman gets pregnant, the cost to the insurance company will be even greater for pregnancy.) Instead, it can create a barrier. (If my co-worker didn't pay hundereds of dollars per month for health insurance, she would have had the money to pay $50 for this pill.)

    THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK PROPERLY. That's my point.

    so this person does not send the paperwork in to get an updated prescription...she runs out of money because she can't budget....figured a month laps in her coverage shouldn't matter...she can't afford $50 for a plan B pill...and the "system" is at fault...

    ok... :roll:
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    inmytree wrote:
    scb wrote:
    For one thing, there's a difference between failing to allow for something and DISallowing it. I didn't say the system DISallowed it; I said it doesn't allow for it.

    I'm saying that the system, whose purpose is to provide a means for people to get healthcare, doen't work. Instead, it doesn't cover all pregnancy prevention medication, leaving it available only for women with an extra $50 to spare. It should be FACILITATING pregnancy prevention - that's what it's there for. (Plus, it's just stupid to not cover all contraception when, if a woman gets pregnant, the cost to the insurance company will be even greater for pregnancy.) Instead, it can create a barrier. (If my co-worker didn't pay hundereds of dollars per month for health insurance, she would have had the money to pay $50 for this pill.)

    THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK PROPERLY. That's my point.

    so this person does not send the paperwork in to get an updated prescription...she runs out of money because she can't budget....figured a month laps in her coverage shouldn't matter...she can't afford $50 for a plan B pill...and the "system" is at fault...

    ok... :roll:

    :)

    How did so many in this society seem to lose such a sense of personal responsibility?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,825
    blackredyellow wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    scb wrote:
    For one thing, there's a difference between failing to allow for something and DISallowing it. I didn't say the system DISallowed it; I said it doesn't allow for it.

    I'm saying that the system, whose purpose is to provide a means for people to get healthcare, doen't work. Instead, it doesn't cover all pregnancy prevention medication, leaving it available only for women with an extra $50 to spare. It should be FACILITATING pregnancy prevention - that's what it's there for. (Plus, it's just stupid to not cover all contraception when, if a woman gets pregnant, the cost to the insurance company will be even greater for pregnancy.) Instead, it can create a barrier. (If my co-worker didn't pay hundereds of dollars per month for health insurance, she would have had the money to pay $50 for this pill.)

    THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK PROPERLY. That's my point.

    so this person does not send the paperwork in to get an updated prescription...she runs out of money because she can't budget....figured a month laps in her coverage shouldn't matter...she can't afford $50 for a plan B pill...and the "system" is at fault...

    ok... :roll:

    :)

    How did so many in this society seem to lose such a sense of personal responsibility?

    No one is allowed to fail anymore, be it banks of kids in school, failure is not an option. Without failure, how is anyone supposed to learn from their mistakes? They don't.

    If this actually worked, then great. But it won't. This whole system will FAIL if the people of this country keep giving their silent permission for these practices to continue.
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    scb wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    Call me callous, but the main barrier in this story is your friend's poor planning and her choice to have unprotected sex...(I'm assuming she had some unprotected sex based on this statement: But she's fearful that he didn't put the condom on in a timely manner.)

    I'm guessing she's an educated adult...I really don't feel sorry for her in this situation...

    I wouldn't say she had poor planning or unprotected sex. She used two methods of contraception: condoms and the withdrawal method. Most people would probably view this as a perfectly reasonable contraceptive effort. She's just trying to go the extra mile and be hyper-vigilant to decrease her risk even further, and the system doesn't allow for that.

    EDIT: The system does allow for it - if you're wealthy.

    No, she depended on the her partner to use a condom and pull out. If he was wearing a condom during the entire process, she would not have had to worry if he pulled out or not. So, I'm thinking she had to be aware at some point that a condom was not being used and took her chances based on the availability that she could get a morning after pill.

    I have to agree with inmytree on this one. Her poor planning, her fault. Hopefully, it was just a bad scare and she's learned a valuable lesson for when the next 'miracle' comes along.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    inmytree wrote:
    scb wrote:
    For one thing, there's a difference between failing to allow for something and DISallowing it. I didn't say the system DISallowed it; I said it doesn't allow for it.

    I'm saying that the system, whose purpose is to provide a means for people to get healthcare, doen't work. Instead, it doesn't cover all pregnancy prevention medication, leaving it available only for women with an extra $50 to spare. It should be FACILITATING pregnancy prevention - that's what it's there for. (Plus, it's just stupid to not cover all contraception when, if a woman gets pregnant, the cost to the insurance company will be even greater for pregnancy.) Instead, it can create a barrier. (If my co-worker didn't pay hundereds of dollars per month for health insurance, she would have had the money to pay $50 for this pill.)

    THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK PROPERLY. That's my point.

    so this person does not send the paperwork in to get an updated prescription...she runs out of money because she can't budget....figured a month laps in her coverage shouldn't matter...she can't afford $50 for a plan B pill...and the "system" is at fault...

    ok... :roll:

    I think you're completely missing my point (and I'm starting to realize why people are so out of touch with reality around here). My point is not to place blame or remove personal responsibility. My point is to explain the reality of reproductive healthcare.

    Whether or not you think it's reasonable for a woman who's not sexually active to think a short lapse in birth control coverage will not be a big deal, and to prioritize other expenses over this one, the point is that this type of contraception is meant to prevent pregnancy in just this type of situation, and yet it's not affordable and accessible, even to someone who's totally knowledgable about how to get it.

    I very seriously doubt, by the way, that any of you guys would have made more "responsible" choices than she did. She continued to take & pay for birth control even when she wasn't sexually active, which most people think isn't necessary. She made sure the guy used a condom, which most people feel is all the contraception that's needed. (Do you all refuse sex with a woman who's not on the pill, or do you think a condom is protection enough?) My most societal & medical accounts, she was responsible and made sure to practice safe sex and probably doesn't even need EC, so how she came to need EC is not the point.

    The point is that, when a woman needs/wants it, it's not accessible to anyone without extra cash laying around (which isn't the same as failing to budget, by the way). This is reality. Of course all of you still want to do the same old thing you always do and just blame the woman, complain about the problem of unintended pregnancy, and act like there's nothing we can do to help aleviate it. :roll:
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    puremagic wrote:
    scb wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    Call me callous, but the main barrier in this story is your friend's poor planning and her choice to have unprotected sex...(I'm assuming she had some unprotected sex based on this statement: But she's fearful that he didn't put the condom on in a timely manner.)

    I'm guessing she's an educated adult...I really don't feel sorry for her in this situation...

    I wouldn't say she had poor planning or unprotected sex. She used two methods of contraception: condoms and the withdrawal method. Most people would probably view this as a perfectly reasonable contraceptive effort. She's just trying to go the extra mile and be hyper-vigilant to decrease her risk even further, and the system doesn't allow for that.

    EDIT: The system does allow for it - if you're wealthy.

    No, she depended on the her partner to use a condom and pull out. If he was wearing a condom during the entire process, she would not have had to worry if he pulled out or not. So, I'm thinking she had to be aware at some point that a condom was not being used and took her chances based on the availability that she could get a morning after pill.

    I have to agree with inmytree on this one. Her poor planning, her fault. Hopefully, it was just a bad scare and she's learned a valuable lesson for when the next 'miracle' comes along.

    Except that's not the case. She's just paranoid about pregnancy & trying to be extra responsible because of where we work. Plus, it doesn't change the fact that EC should be available to women who need/want it.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    Why don't I simplify the story for everyone:

    A woman with health insurance but without $50 extra bucks has sex and uses a condom. She wants to "back up her birth control" with EC. She can't get it.

    How is the insurance company refusing to cover this kind of birth control any different than if they had refused to cover any other form of birth control? (The only difference I see is that people are more quick to judge women who use this kind of birth control.)

    And why do people on here always complain about women having too many children or having abortions & yet refuse to acknowledge what our healthcare system can do about the problem?
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,825
    Are you sure your old insurance plan covered emergency contraception?

    Also, getting paid every 6 weeks? It sounds like the both of you have some things to iron out with your employer... For one, maybe you can opt out of your company's plan (or is it the state you work for?) and receive that money to put towards a plan of your choosing where the insurance company will cover everything you want it to? Best of luck with that... You may get EC, but maybe cancer treatment may be absent?

    The lapse between plans that your friend had, when you think about it, opened her up to not being able to afford injuries from a slip and fall, or a malignant tumor, etc... things that could be harder to deal with financially speaking, than a mere $50.

    I agree with you, it's bullshit. I don't know that EC should be covered or not if the insurance company is already providing one means of contraception in the plan, but I do know that none of this stuff should cost what it costs. Lawyers, politicians, and insurance companies drive up the price of EVERYTHING. Thank them all for working together to legislating their own power. It's long past due for a separation of corporation and state.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    Are you sure your old insurance plan covered emergency contraception?

    Also, getting paid every 6 weeks? It sounds like the both of you have some things to iron out with your employer... For one, maybe you can opt out of your company's plan (or is it the state you work for?) and receive that money to put towards a plan of your choosing where the insurance company will cover everything you want it to? Best of luck with that... You may get EC, but maybe cancer treatment may be absent?

    The lapse between plans that your friend had, when you think about it, opened her up to not being able to afford injuries from a slip and fall, or a malignant tumor, etc... things that could be harder to deal with financially speaking, than a mere $50.

    I agree with you, it's bullshit. I don't know that EC should be covered or not if the insurance company is already providing one means of contraception in the plan, but I do know that none of this stuff should cost what it costs. Lawyers, politicians, and insurance companies drive up the price of EVERYTHING. Thank them all for working together to legislating their own power. It's long past due for a separation of corporation and state.

    I'm pretty sure the old plan covered it, since many of our patients are also our employees & this problem has never come up.

    Those of us who are salaried get paid on the last business day of the month. Since we get about 2 weeks off for the holidays, it's only once a year that our checks must last 6 weeks.

    We work for the state university, so we're kind of state employees and kind of not. We're the 2nd-largest employer in the state (the federal government is 1st), so you'd think we'd have some bargaining power. I'm just astonished that our university didn't see fit to bargain for this. We're also the state's primary healthcare provider, so you'd think we'd be able to get the best coverage.

    To be clear, there was no lapse in medical coverage. They just switched prescription plans (without asking us, of course), causing everyone to have to jump through a bunch of hoops to continue their prescriptions.

    Regarding whether EC should be covered when other forms of birth control are already covered: Different people need different forms of birth control under different circumstances. I might could understand if they covered only one brand of birth control that can be used under these circumstances, but they excluded every single one.
  • whatsgoingon
    whatsgoingon Posts: 62
    I think everybody should have a grand or 2 for a rainy day fund. This is simple Math and if you really do work this should never be an issue. If you make X per month and you spend greater then or equal to X you are doing it wrong. Maybe you and your friend should look into not spending so much money. There are many things you can do to save money and this economy I can't believe somebody would not be trying to save every cent they could but I guess thats what irresponsible people do. I would be more sympathetic if this person had lost a their job and/or didn't have medical insurance but basically it sounds like she has been continually lazy and irresponsible.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    whatsgoingon wrote:
    I think everybody should have a grand or 2 for a rainy day fund. This is simple Math and if you really do work this should never be an issue. If you make X per month and you spend greater then or equal to X you are doing it wrong. Maybe you and your friend should look into not spending so much money. There are many things you can do to save money and this economy I can't believe somebody would not be trying to save every cent they could but I guess thats what irresponsible people do. I would be more sympathetic if this person had lost a their job and/or didn't have medical insurance but basically it sounds like she has been continually lazy and irresponsible.

    :roll:

    The point is that it should be COVERED. We pay plenty of money for our health insurance. We shouldn't have to pay $50 for meds - and certainly not for a single dose.
  • whatsgoingon
    whatsgoingon Posts: 62
    If the only argument is that Insurance companies should cover the pill then I agree because the price of the pill is less then the price of having a baby. Though there would still be a co-pay and because the medicine should not be free. Also you can always go to planned parenthood and they will help you out if you are in a finical crisis. I can say when my wife and I where dating we had to get the Pill on 3 occasions and at no point was it covered by medical insurance.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    scb wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    scb wrote:
    For one thing, there's a difference between failing to allow for something and DISallowing it. I didn't say the system DISallowed it; I said it doesn't allow for it.

    I'm saying that the system, whose purpose is to provide a means for people to get healthcare, doen't work. Instead, it doesn't cover all pregnancy prevention medication, leaving it available only for women with an extra $50 to spare. It should be FACILITATING pregnancy prevention - that's what it's there for. (Plus, it's just stupid to not cover all contraception when, if a woman gets pregnant, the cost to the insurance company will be even greater for pregnancy.) Instead, it can create a barrier. (If my co-worker didn't pay hundereds of dollars per month for health insurance, she would have had the money to pay $50 for this pill.)

    THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK PROPERLY. That's my point.

    so this person does not send the paperwork in to get an updated prescription...she runs out of money because she can't budget....figured a month laps in her coverage shouldn't matter...she can't afford $50 for a plan B pill...and the "system" is at fault...

    ok... :roll:

    I think you're completely missing my point (and I'm starting to realize why people are so out of touch with reality around here). My point is not to place blame or remove personal responsibility. My point is to explain the reality of reproductive healthcare.

    Whether or not you think it's reasonable for a woman who's not sexually active to think a short lapse in birth control coverage will not be a big deal, and to prioritize other expenses over this one, the point is that this type of contraception is meant to prevent pregnancy in just this type of situation, and yet it's not affordable and accessible, even to someone who's totally knowledgable about how to get it.

    I very seriously doubt, by the way, that any of you guys would have made more "responsible" choices than she did. She continued to take & pay for birth control even when she wasn't sexually active, which most people think isn't necessary. She made sure the guy used a condom, which most people feel is all the contraception that's needed. (Do you all refuse sex with a woman who's not on the pill, or do you think a condom is protection enough?) My most societal & medical accounts, she was responsible and made sure to practice safe sex and probably doesn't even need EC, so how she came to need EC is not the point.

    The point is that, when a woman needs/wants it, it's not accessible to anyone without extra cash laying around (which isn't the same as failing to budget, by the way). This is reality. Of course all of you still want to do the same old thing you always do and just blame the woman, complain about the problem of unintended pregnancy, and act like there's nothing we can do to help aleviate it. :roll:

    oh spare me...I understand your point...I happen to disagree...I understand not all insurance plans cover everything, she should have reviewed the information given...I know every year when my insurance changes I read through everything...

    You say: The point is that, when a woman needs/wants it, it's not accessible to anyone without extra cash laying around...

    well, it was accessible...she just couldn't afford it...I wonder, if where $25 bucks, would this be an issue...I find it interesting that this person is so paranoid about being prego when a condom and the ol' pull out method was used...

    and I just re-read the original post...and this sticks out to me:

    She goes this morning to the pharmacy for emergency contraception (AKA Plan B or the morning after pill). She knows it's available without a prescription. But the pharmacist says it's $50 without a prescription.


    call me kooky, I never had insurance cover non-prescription medication...has anyone...?
  • GTFLYGIRL
    GTFLYGIRL NewYork Posts: 788
    the whole health insurance system is complete BULLSHIT.

    My three year old son needs medication that he wears on a patch.

    HE IS THREE.

    The world is an imperfect place...especially when three year olds do things like pull patches off their little three year old bodies.

    My health insurance company wont re-fill his 30 patch prescription til day 30. So god forbid a patch doesnt apply correctly, gets ripped, or taken off, or any number of other things that can happen...well it's TOO BAD THREE YEAR OLD!

    When i asked the pharmacist what other people do to deal with this he told me... (rudely!)... "they only use thirty patches each month!!!:

    This country and it's current health insurance scam of a system does not allow for any type of human error. Even that of a three year old.

    It's a FUCKING TRAVESTY.
  • GTFLYGIRL
    GTFLYGIRL NewYork Posts: 788
    And these patches cost $35 / month... and my portion of my health insurance... FOR MY SON... is $290 a month and my son has a $1000 annual deductible (not including prescriptions)

    So it's not like i'm looking for any type of handouts here

    Just a system that works with people and not against people would be a nice start!
  • Starfall
    Starfall Posts: 548
    I'm surprised nobody's mention a major hurdle for women seeking contraception - in many states pharmacists are allowed to deny sales of contraceptives based on personal religious beliefs.

    So heaven help you women if you need a morning after pill and find yourself in the only drugstore within 100 miles, and having to deal with Fundamentalist Pharma.
    "It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    Starfall wrote:
    I'm surprised nobody's mention a major hurdle for women seeking contraception - in many states pharmacists are allowed to deny sales of contraceptives based on personal religious beliefs. .

    :shock: :o :shock:
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    inmytree wrote:
    I find it interesting that this person is so paranoid about being prego when a condom and the ol' pull out method was used...

    It's called being extra responsible. Much as many of you bitch about personal responsibility and unintended pregnancy & abortion all the time, you should be singing her praises. I'm not surprised, though, how easily EVERY thread around here about the consequences of sex is turned against the women. :roll:

    inmytree wrote:
    call me kooky, I never had insurance cover non-prescription medication...has anyone...?

    Every insurance plan I've ever had has covered medication when you have a prescription, even if it's also available without one.

Categories