BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

Noticed Your Birth Control Costing More? Tell Congress

MONDAY NOVEMBER 19 2007 4:00 PM

Submitted by Bitch_PhD. Edited By Bitch_PhD.

TAGS: birth control, reproductive rights, congress, politics

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.

133 Comments

PAGE:

1 ...

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

... 9

Deunan

I'm lost

April 2005

NOV 20, 2007 03:14 AM

Interesting, I just had mine reduced.

I have seen what MrOuijaAK is saying, having worked at Wal-Mart for two years. It's sad when people complain that they can't buy cigarettes with food stamps. But it happens. It also happens that people don't abuse the system.

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Morocco

NOV 20, 2007 04:35 AM

It's really depressing how threads about being a decent human being and understanding that when you live in a community, you should be willing to support that community end up so full of selfish douchebags. Also sad is how they all justify their opinions with statistically untrue welfare horror stories, opinions about how the poor are at fault for their own poverty, and general batshit opinions.

Affordable birth control beings all the poverty wank to the yard, apparently.

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Morocco

NOV 20, 2007 04:37 AM

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.

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Morocco

NOV 20, 2007 04:40 AM

syndeusys said:If you don't have $9 a month you probably should be focusing on more important priorities than fucking (that's just me)

Yes, obviously if someone is poor they shouldn't be allowed to act on their natural sexual urges. Sex is only for the middle and upper class!

syndeusys saidYou 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.

And what about people who are on "brand names" for medical reasons, and cannot switch to a generic. Or, hey, people who can't afford insurance?

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD

June 2004

NOV 20, 2007 06:28 AM

What's funny is that everybody thinks it's a direct government subsidy.

The government wants the lowest price offered by the pill manufacturers. This is to obviously prevent fraud. But they used to allow the pill manufacturers to sell to colleges at a lower price. The law change removed this loophole for pill manufacturers.

So it's not really a subsidy, except in a very roundabout way.

sy_old

Columbia, MO

March 2007

NOV 20, 2007 06:51 AM

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?

syndeusys

I'm lost

September 2005

NOV 20, 2007 08:37 AM

Yes, obviously if someone is poor they shouldn't be allowed to act on their natural sexual urges. Sex is only for the middle and upper class!

I bet you can scrape together $9 worth of change in a month if it's important I know no matter how broke I have ever been I can always come up with money for cigarettes one way or another.

And what about people who are on "brand names" for medical reasons, and cannot switch to a generic. Or, hey, people who can't afford insurance?

People who can't switch to a generic might constitute about 0.1% of the people who take BC maybe if it's even that high.

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?

Most girls are on Monophasic birth control of one brand or another without insurance this will run you around $30 a month which yeah is high. Same thing for you progestins. The triphasics are around $35 without insurance. With insurance they should range from $0 to about $15(max) a month. The only class of oral contraceptives without a generic are biphasics and they are no longer sold in the US.

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.

Hell maybe have your boyfriend help pay for it too. Just throwing it out there.

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY

May 2003

NOV 20, 2007 08:49 AM

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!

syndeusys

I'm lost

September 2005

NOV 20, 2007 08:57 AM

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

I'm sorry lemme just sum it up real succinctly affordable drug coverage is needed across the board. Birth control certainly doesn't rank highest on the list of medicines that should be subsidized.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

NOV 20, 2007 09:03 AM

MrOuijaAK said:
How is it stupid that I don't want to pay for other people's shit?

Um.... you get paid by the rest of us to live in Alaska, so I'd really shut the fuck up with this bullshit.

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY

February 2004

NOV 20, 2007 09:04 AM

seriously, women need to just get on the ball wth thier birth control. if that means working an extra two hours a month, then im fine with that, i mean, a guy has to buy them drinks at the bar, in order for them to get to use thier birth control. women are all such whiners anyway, first its drinks and dinner, then its birth control pills, then its money for a doctor fro thier kid, and then its alimony. why cant they pullthemselves up by thier high heels?

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY

May 2003

NOV 20, 2007 09:05 AM

syndeusys said:

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

I'm sorry lemme just sum it up real succinctly affordable drug coverage is needed across the board. Birth control certainly doesn't rank highest on the list of medicines that should be subsidized.

That's still a logical fallacy, since the federal program in question is not a subsidy, nor does it preclude other prescription drugs being subsidized.

Also, saying that only prescription drugs that have a certain rank on your arbitrary list should be subsidized is pretty ludicrous, as is attaching value judgments onto what medications people have been prescribed.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

NOV 20, 2007 09:06 AM

syndeusys said:

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

I'm sorry lemme just sum it up real succinctly affordable drug coverage is needed across the board. Birth control certainly doesn't rank highest on the list of medicines that should be subsidized.

If drug coverage is needed "across the board" then birth control would rank right alongside everything else.

After reading this thread, It appears that stupid pills are still relatively cheap and abundant.

syndeusys

I'm lost

September 2005

NOV 20, 2007 09:30 AM

Alright how arbitrary is this? Antibiotics or Birth Control, Seizure medication or Birth Control, anti-arrhythmic drugs or Birth Control, medication to prevent organ rejection or Birth Control? You're going to have a hard time convincing me that birth control goes above any of those others and it's not like the list stops there either how about super expensive cancer and AIDS medications. I know my "arbitrary" rating system really sounds batshit crazy. I obviously didn't think that one out before I said it.

If nothing is being subsidized how are the medications getting cheaper? I'd be pretty shocked if asking the pharmaceutical industry is all that it took. I don't think it prevents other medicines from being cheaper but the money has to come from somewhere.

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY

May 2003

NOV 20, 2007 09:38 AM

syndeusys said:
Alright how arbitrary is this? Antibiotics or Birth Control, Seizure medication or Birth Control, anti-arrhythmic drugs or Birth Control, medication to prevent organ rejection or Birth Control? You're going to have a hard time convincing me that birth control goes above any of those others and it's not like the list stops there either how about super expensive cancer and AIDS medications. I know my "arbitrary" rating system really sounds batshit crazy. I obviously didn't think that one out before I said it.

How about "all of the above"?

If you're saying that what you deem to be important prescription drugs should be affordable "across the board", you better come up with a better reason for allowing something as widely prescribed as hormonal birth control to somehow not be included other than "I don't wanna".

syndeusys said:
If nothing is being subsidized how are the medications getting cheaper? I'd be pretty shocked if asking the pharmaceutical industry is all that it took. I don't think it prevents other medicines from being cheaper but the money has to come from somewhere.

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

PAGE:

1 ...

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

... 9