• commentary
  • MONDAY NOVEMBER 19 2007 4:00 PM

Noticed Your Birth Control Costing More? Tell Congress



Remember this piece about birth control costs for college students going up because the Bush administration cut the funding that helps subsidize it?

Well, college students around the country, with the help of NARAL, organized petition drives on campus, and as a result of their work, there's a bill wending its way through Congress now--HR 4054, the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act--that does just what its title suggests: restores college and university access to low-cost birth control.

this fall, college women returned to campus to discover that the birth control that previously cost them $5–10 for a monthly supply now cost $40–50 per pack, making it far more difficult to afford. Due to a provision included in the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), as of January 1, 2007, every college and university health center and hundreds of safety-net providers were unintentionally cut off from accessing low-cost birth control and passing on the low price to college women and low-income women. The result has been an increase in the average price of birth control on college campuses, often to 10 times the previous cost.

Rep. Crowley’s legislation, The Prevention Through Affordable Access Act, would bring down the soaring cost of birth control at college health clinics and safety-net providers and increase access to affordable birth control. This legislation will not cost the taxpayers a single dime, and would restore the voluntary benefit to college health clinics and safety-net providers. (My emphasis.)



Should be a no-brainer, but you can't count on that in a world where plenty of legislators think Plan B causes abortion (it doesn't) or that it's a-okay for pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions to women.

So take half a minute to click through and send a letter to your representative urging them to support HR 4054.

Bitch_PhD can't wait for a decent national health program that'll cover birth control for everyone.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Next

Comments
sy_old

sy_old

Columbia, MO
March 2007

NOV 20, 2007 09:43 AM

First of all, your argument that BC isn't important is pretty fucking stupid. Overpopulation is the earth's biggest concern, no? If you are so adamant about old people living longer than I would think you would also be in favor of population control as well.

Acacia

Acacia

SUICIDEGIRL

Virginia, USA

NOV 20, 2007 10:18 AM

Ok, so now I know why when I went for my year exam and picked up my year supply of birth control pills a few days ago, why it cost like 20 bucks more than normal.

Bullshit. There are poor girls that wanna play it safe, ya know.

syndeusys

syndeusys

I'm lost
September 2005

NOV 20, 2007 10:53 AM



The federal program mentioned in this article is not a subsidy.



That didn't answer my question at all. How is the BC being sold for less? All drugs should be made affordable for all people. Yes, including birth control however this isn't about all drugs this is about strictly birth control which I think should be done after quality of life medications.



First of all, your argument that BC isn't important is pretty fucking stupid. Overpopulation is the earth's biggest concern, no? If you are so adamant about old people living longer than I would think you would also be in favor of population control as well.



Birth control is important just not nearly as important as the majority of other medicines that are for medical conditions. It's the difference between necessity and convenience. I just think there are much larger fish to fry than the issue of affordable birth control.

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

NOV 20, 2007 11:12 AM

syndeusys said:
That didn't answer my question at all. How is the BC being sold for less?



Because federal law requires drug manufacturers to sell prescription drugs to the Medicare program at a set cost. College pharmacies used to have access to those lower-cost prescription drugs, and now they do not. Hence, the cost for students rose.

syndeusys

syndeusys

I'm lost
September 2005

NOV 20, 2007 11:18 AM


Because federal law requires drug manufacturers to sell prescription drugs to the Medicare program at a set cost. College pharmacies used to have access to those lower-cost prescription drugs, and now they do not. Hence, the cost for students rose.



Alright well that sounds a hell of a lot better.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

NOV 20, 2007 11:20 AM

syndeusys said:


Because federal law requires drug manufacturers to sell prescription drugs to the Medicare program at a set cost. College pharmacies used to have access to those lower-cost prescription drugs, and now they do not. Hence, the cost for students rose.



Alright well that sounds a hell of a lot better.



The real story, the one that was explained pretty clearly in the original post, sounds lot better than the one you were making up in your head? Imagine that.

syndeusys

syndeusys

I'm lost
September 2005

NOV 20, 2007 11:37 AM


The real story, the one that was explained pretty clearly in the original post, sounds lot better than the one you were making up in your head? Imagine that.



Well when someone tells me something is going to cost less money and there isn't a reason why. I'm left to wonder and the only inference I could make is that the government would be making up the difference. I tried clicking on the link to take me to the actual bill but it doesn't mention anything about how it's being paid for. I'm sorry 50 hours a week at work I deal with sick patients. I think it gives me a slightly different outlook on the whole situation than it allows you. Find me where in the above article it says what Uncognitive said cause lemme tell you what it doesn't. The first line in the article however does mislead people into thinking it's subsidized.

Cherries

Cherries

SUICIDEGIRL

Missouri, USA

NOV 20, 2007 11:47 AM

I am not insured, So I go to planned parenthood for birth control.
In Missouri there is no discounted pills, The cheapest ones are $25 and that's what I'm on. I'm not a college student, So I get no discount there either.
Two years ago I was on the patch, But the price kept getting jacked up.. Eventually to $55 and I'm sorry that's hard to come by some months, Not to mention it's made for pennies.

I don't understand why birth control isn't FREE or at least a set rate. Do you know how many people really can't afford pills? And yes, Condoms are an alternative, But I myself feel much safer with a pill too.

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

NOV 20, 2007 12:59 PM

Uncognitive said:

syndeusys said:
Sorry if my bleeding heart doesn't go out to young college age and low income women who want BC. It's a little more upsetting when I have to turn away elderly patients for their heart medication or watch a woman pay $1700 for an injection for her son. It goes without saying that the whole system needs an overhaul but BC is one of the cheapest monthly drugs available for a somewhat recreational activity. The ability for people to live should come above others ability to fuck. Not that cheap BC isn't awesome but I would sacrifice it pretty quickly in order to help with quality of life issues.



Ladies and gentlemen, let's have a big round of applause for False Dilemma and His Logical Fallacies!



One day, I will make a band of that name.

Just watch me.

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

NOV 20, 2007 01:01 PM

Cherries said:
I am not insured, So I go to planned parenthood for birth control.
In Missouri there is no discounted pills, The cheapest ones are $25 and that's what I'm on. I'm not a college student, So I get no discount there either.
Two years ago I was on the patch, But the price kept getting jacked up.. Eventually to $55 and I'm sorry that's hard to come by some months, Not to mention it's made for pennies.

I don't understand why birth control isn't FREE or at least a set rate. Do you know how many people really can't afford pills? And yes, Condoms are an alternative, But I myself feel much safer with a pill too.



Oh, I understand perfectly well why BC isn't free. It's because the pharmaceutical companies couldn't give two shits about people who can't afford their overpriced goods. They're in it for profit.

lefthandright

lefthandright

New Zealand
September 2006

NOV 20, 2007 01:51 PM

Where I live the birth control pill does not get any subs....but condoms do...why is this?..it seems rather logical to us in New zealand...condoms prevent pregnancy as well as sexually transmitted diseases, birth control pills only covers one of those aspects. The thinking is simple,.most sexually transmitted diseases (I think 64%) are contracted and spread throughout the age community 16-25..this is typically the years people spend in school or uni..so sub the the product that best prevents a)teenage pregnancy b)helps stifle young adult s.t.d's.

However both use plastic extrusion and leave latent estrogen in the water supply which is having a dramatic effect upon male health and sperm production...so in ten, maybe twenty years women won't need to use any birth control to avoid pregnancy because the only viable way to conceive with be through test tubes.

Also does anyone know if there is a subsidy on the rhythm method?

lefthandright

lefthandright

New Zealand
September 2006

NOV 20, 2007 02:08 PM

synielle said:

syndeusys said:
Are you out of your damn mind first of all you don't need any $300 birth control second I'm pretty sure Bitch_PhD's last article talked about Wal-Mart having BC without insurance for $9. If you don't have $9 a month you probably should be focusing on more important priorities than fucking (that's just me), third I can only think of 1 subsidiary of 1 insurance plan that doesn't cover BC and since I spend all day long filling prescriptions I've got a pretty good idea of how much they cost and how the health insurance works. You might not be able to get your brand name Yaz! or some such stuff but they'll definitely cover multiple generics. Some plans even go so far as to completely eliminate copays on BC.

While I don't agree with eliminating the welfare system there are a ton of people who I see abuse it everyday. They constitute a minority but it's still frustrating.




Right. Because girls decide how our bodies are going to react to certain birth controls. Most of us can just choose whatever birth control we want, and not have to worry about silly unimportant things such as nausea, and sickness and so forth. Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, some of the people on expensive birth control have exhausted all of their other BC options with bad results? The truth of the matter is is that for a LOT of girls, you take what will work with your body. I'm on a generic BC for the most expensive pill I've ever taken in my life (and believe me - it's still expensive), while my friend is fine with her 7$ birth control. Is it MY fault that if I took her BC I'd wake up throwing every morning?



If you are taking birth control that makes you throw up every morning and only one kind of expensive brand prevents that nausea, I urge you strongly to discontinue taking birth control pills...your system is not one that reacts well to them...the ones that do prevent nausea are typically the same recipe with additional agents to prevent your body doing what it should do when something has been put in that it finds poisonous...the body only tries to expel what it knows is damaging it. Every persons body is roughly the same, but we all have minor variances, for you it seems your hormone balance is more delicate and vulnerable to upsets caused by the pill...i strongly urge you to use male oriented protection,..if your partner does not like it, that speaks volumes about him.

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

NOV 20, 2007 02:23 PM

lefthandright, what the hell are you talking about?

BDeyeD

BDeyeD

Toronto, ON
January 2007

NOV 20, 2007 02:35 PM

lefthandright said:
If you are taking birth control that makes you throw up every morning and only one kind of expensive brand prevents that nausea, I urge you strongly to discontinue taking birth control pills...your system is not one that reacts well to them...the ones that do prevent nausea are typically the same recipe with additional agents to prevent your body doing what it should do when something has been put in that it finds poisonous...the body only tries to expel what it knows is damaging it. Every persons body is roughly the same, but we all have minor variances, for you it seems your hormone balance is more delicate and vulnerable to upsets caused by the pill...i strongly urge you to use male oriented protection,..if your partner does not like it, that speaks volumes about him.



I'm guessing you're not a doctor, because the above drivel is so wrong it's funny. Not funny "ha-ha", funny sad. The different birth control pills on the market use different forms of hormones in different concentrations. They are most certainly not all the same. I really hope you never grow or are responsible for a vagina.

As for women using birth control pills instead of relying on condoms - condoms can break. Can you really blame us for preferring a back-up?

MrOuijaAK

MrOuijaAK

Anchorage, AK
September 2005

NOV 20, 2007 03:10 PM

Morgan said:

MrOuijaAK said: Stories from his oh-so-important and impressive job at a fucking grocery store



Has anyone ever let you know that the plural of anecdote is not data?

Your handful of (probably made up) stories about those bad, bad people on welfare doesn't say a thing about the system in general. Maybe you just live in an area full of assholes. Which would make sense, because you kind of sound like a gigantic asshole yourself.



My "oh-so-important" job that paid well enough to cover my college tuition, rent, food and... *duhn duhn duhhh* birth control for my girlfriend at the time. I really don't give a shit about "impressing" anyone. But I do find it ironic that you make a condescending remark about someones job while defending people that can't hold one.

My stories aren't made up, but I'll never be able to convince any of you of that since you'd rather just deny their truth and believe what you want to. It's almost like arguing with Creationism-supporters. I'm glad Deunan came in to back me up a bit, despite all the blind sharks in the water.

Yes I suppose I am an asshole. I have no desire to help other people who are simply lazy. How about this. This is a welfare system I would approve of:

Pre-evaluation of the person's current non-monetary assets, for possible liquidation of luxury items.
Must work a full-time job while on the system.
1 Year Maximum, must be off of it 5 years before reapplying.
Work with counselors to find solutions to their current dilemmas.
Monthly drug tests.
Limit the purchasable items to essentials of life.
Repayment of earned benefits through payroll deduction once they're off the program.

Is that reasonable enough? Or does it really have to just pass out money to anyone who feels their lot in life is unacceptable?

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Next