BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

Latest News from the War on Women

SATURDAY MARCH 24 2007 3:00 PM

Submitted by Bitch_PhD. Edited By FearTheReaper.

TAGS: reproductive rights, women's health, birth control, federal spending, Bush administration

If you're in college, you may have noticed that the cost of your birth control's gone way up.

Last year when Pres. George W. Bush slashed funding for domestic spending programs to free up more money for his war on terror, analysts didn't foresee how steeply some prices would increase as a result of fewer federal dollars. This year millions of college students are seeing steep price increases that have doubled or tripled the price of birth control pills.
. . . .
Skyrocketing price increases are fallout from the 2005 deficit-reduction bill that focused on Medicaid. Because Medicaid is the federal health insurance program for the poor college health officials had not realized the bill would affect them in any way.

This is annoying, of course; but it also contributes to systemic discrimination. College students are often kinda broke--having to pay for birth control is an expense women have, and men don't. So women are a little bit broker having to buy birth control; and now they're a little bit broker still, since it costs two or three times more than it did last year.

Same with health insurance not covering birth control: there's an out-of-pocket expense that women have, and men don't.

It seems petty, but it adds up. If you have to scrimp at the beginning of the semester by, say, postponing buying a book or two, then you might be a little behind; if you have to work an extra hour or two a week in order to afford birth control, you have a little less time to study. And if you run out of pills and are too broke to afford to replace 'em for a week or two, and you take a gamble, well then, you're up shit creek.

Does this kind of thing constitute systematic sexism? You tell me.

Bitch PhD remembers having to budget for things like tooth brushes and birth control pills, and is glad those days are behind her now.

706 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 48

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

MAR 24, 2007 05:20 PM

Bastardo said:
They haven't gone up at my pharmacy. And people tend to complain loudly about the cost of drugs, esp when they go up.

It's an issue that only affects college and university pharmacies.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

MAR 24, 2007 05:29 PM

theconservative said:
isn't this a free market economy?

Not in the way you're insinuating, we don't. That's why we have things like the FDA and consumer protection acts and antitrust laws.

why is it the government's responsibility to pay for your pills? buy them your own damn self, i've got my own bills to pay.

The article linked above doesn't really do a good job at explaining it, but this one does a bit better job at showing why you've got the issue mixed up,

The change is the result of a chain reaction started by a 2005 deficit-reduction bill that focused on Medicaid, the main federal health insurance program for the poor. College health officials say they had little idea the bill would affect them.

Before the change, pharmaceutical companies typically sold drugs at deep discounts to a range of health care providers, including colleges. With contraceptives, one motivation was attracting customers who would stay with their products for years.

Another reason the discounts made business sense was that they didn't count against the drug makers in a formula calculating rebates they owed states to participate in Medicaid.

But in its 2005 bill -- which went into effect in January -- Congress changed that. Now the discounts to colleges mean drug manufacturers have to pay more to participate in Medicaid.

The result: Fewer companies are willing to offer discounts.

In other words, this particular program didn't actually cost you a red cent.

oh yeah, when did birth control pills become a necessity? i realize some girls are prescribed them early on for medical reasons, but still.

Medical necessity? Not usually. REALLY good things to make VERY cheap and readily available? Yes always.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

MAR 24, 2007 05:32 PM

wildswan said:
Some of you guys only need to read your responses to figure out why you're not getting laid more.

And why everyone else should really, really care about making sure anyone who would sleep with you is on the pill.

bald_eagle

Indianapolis, IN

November 2006

MAR 24, 2007 05:32 PM

geo35 said:

There's other much more natural ways to prevent pregnancy besides becoming a ward of big pharma. Like not fucking when you're ovulating.

Oh, yeah. The so-called 'rhythm method.' It's been used by Catholics for years (birth control is sin, doncha know). That must be why they have such small families.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

MAR 24, 2007 05:36 PM

geo35 said:
There's other much more natural ways to prevent pregnancy besides becoming a ward of big pharma. Like condoms. Like oral sex and mutual masturbation. Like not fucking when you're ovulating.

Joe Organic has spoken.

Holy crap, I missed this the first time around.

You're totally right, though.

If by "natural", you mean "amazingly less effective."

wildswan

I'm lost

June 2006

MAR 24, 2007 05:41 PM

Subrosa said:

wildswan said:
Some of you guys only need to read your responses to figure out why you're not getting laid more.

And why everyone else should really, really care about making sure anyone who would sleep with you is on the pill.

Yea verily.

VaugelyChilly

Ireland

October 2006

MAR 24, 2007 05:42 PM

Zarth said:
So the answer to my question is no. Carry on, then.

I just think you guys are cheap.

Pointing out that we think an article is a poorly concieved attempt to illustrate there is a 'War on Women' because of the incidental rise in the cost of birth control and "most women have to pay for birth control pills, therefore this is a direct attack on women by the Bush administration' is cheap?

This isn't some sort of "let's all point at the feminist and deride her for the sake of it", just about everyone (male and female) who have posted here are of this opinon so far.

I mean if someone was to post an article proposing that because of a rise in the price of bullets due to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration is waging a "War on Hillbilly Hunting Partys", would you for one call us cheap for disagreeing with it, or would it only be dependant on if a woman had written the article?

lenina

Hanover, MA

March 2007

MAR 24, 2007 05:48 PM

I have a steady bf, and personally I think condoms are a pain in the ass, so I don't use them with him.
I go to a clinic type of place and the prices have def gone up. I used to pay 15$ for my NuvaRing now I pay 25$... suck

redconsensus

Baltimore, MD

August 2004

MAR 24, 2007 06:02 PM

theconservative said:
isn't this a free market economy? why is it the government's responsibility to pay for your pills? buy them your own damn self, i've got my own bills to pay.
oh yeah, when did birth control pills become a necessity? i realize some girls are prescribed them early on for medical reasons, but still.

But wait...it's NOT a free market economy. Tons of things are government subsidized. You can't have parts of a market be free and other not, it undermines the entire point of the thing if you do that.

Besides which, women have children they can't support economically is bad for society as a whole. Not just the specific woman in question. That's more children that need systemic support down the road, which we'll all wind up paying for. The prevention is far less costly than the treatment would be.

Daxwell

I'm lost

March 2005

MAR 24, 2007 06:17 PM

1. Birth control is sometimes a necessity for the hormones.

2. Why would anyone disagree with cheap birth control? Don't you all realize that the world is overpopulated.

3. If we want to talk about wasted tax dollars, lets talk about a failing social services system, the overburdened welfare system, paternity cases tying up the courts, and teenage pregnancy. All issues that could be minimized with education and birth control.

4. Abortion. no matter which side you are on, in many cases is not an issue with proper pregnancy prevention.

This isn't a necessarily a feminist issue, it affects anyone having sex. Married or not. Protected or not.

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Morocco

MAR 24, 2007 06:25 PM

wildswan said:
Some of you guys only need to read your responses to figure out why you're not getting laid more.

Yes times a million.

Birth control at my school has gone up to 25 dollars a month. 25 fucking dollars. For one pack. That is a big deal for me, as I'm currently lucky to have 50 dollars a month to use for ANYTHING, food included. And I'm hardly the poorest student on my campus. I can't imagine what it must be like for women elsewhere.

DeadBilly

Burnt Cabins, PA

February 2004

MAR 24, 2007 06:25 PM

Daxwell said:
1. Birth control is sometimes a necessity for the hormones.

2. Why would anyone disagree with cheap birth control? Don't you all realize that the world is overpopulated.

That's not really my objection. My problem is the way the article is worded, as to prove some kind of anti-woman conspiracy. I would agree that this is an ANTI-SEX measure, but not anti-woman.

Necia

San Francisco, CA

August 2005

MAR 24, 2007 06:30 PM

geo35 said:

mr_gosh said:
There's always free condoms to be had on a college campus. Always. Go to the university's student health center and ask for them.

Of course, that takes away the sexiness of being a martyr, but you can't have everything you want in life.

Gawd, ain't it the truth? It's always up to someone else to take care of me.

There's other much more natural ways to prevent pregnancy besides becoming a ward of big pharma. Like condoms. Like oral sex and mutual masturbation. Like not fucking when you're ovulating.

Joe Organic has spoken.

You didn't really just cite the rhythm method as a legitimate form of birth control, did you?

Necia

San Francisco, CA

August 2005

MAR 24, 2007 06:34 PM

Vilya said:
Mine actually hasn't gone up at all...it's still $15 with the rest of it covered by in insurance plan....

It's unfortunate that the government is doing this though. Although, I will state that before I went on the pill my boyfriend always paid for condoms etc...which are actually more expensive in retrospect than the $15 a month I now spend.

Well, that's because you're on insurance. What you mean is that your copay hasn't gone up, not that the cost might not have gone up. That's not the case for those who aren't insured. Birth control at Planned Parenthood, even on the sliding fee scale, has been more than $15 for years now.

Necia

San Francisco, CA

August 2005

MAR 24, 2007 06:36 PM

mr_gosh said:

Daxwell said:
1. Birth control is sometimes a necessity for the hormones.

2. Why would anyone disagree with cheap birth control? Don't you all realize that the world is overpopulated.

That's not really my objection. My problem is the way the article is worded, as to prove some kind of anti-woman conspiracy. I would agree that this is an ANTI-SEX measure, but not anti-woman.

*sigh*

WHO GETS STUCK WITH THE BABY? If the dude having sex decides he wants none of that baby shit, who's stuck? There you go.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 48