Bill calls for insurance-backed birth control
By Marissa Cumbers (Last updated: 09/14/09 11:28pm)Legislation on its way to the Michigan House floor would require insurance companies to provide prescription coverage for birth control.
The package of nine bills, part of a 15–bill initiative promoted by Planned Parenthood’s Prevention First campaign, was passed by the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 9.
The package was created to expand access to contraception and improve sex education, said Sarah Scranton, executive director for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan.
“The package was intended to really put forth common sense prevention measures so we could improve women’s health and prevent unintended pregnancies,” she said.
On average, birth control costs between $30 and $70 for both the insured and uninsured depending on the plan, said Liz Ratzloff, president of MSU Students for Choice and a zoology junior.
“Birth control can be as much as $65 to $75 a month, and what college woman can afford that?” she said.
Education freshman Allie Schwall said her mother had to fight with the family’s insurance company to receive birth control coverage, and even after that, the medication cost about $60 a month.
“It should be paid for and available for everyone,” Schwall said.
But state Rep. Bill Caul, R-Mount Pleasant, said requiring insurance companies to cover contraceptives would unnecessarily raise insurance prices for all consumers.
“In this day and age, when we are already having a debate about the rising cost of health care, insurance prices for everyone would come up as a result of (companies) having to provide these particular services to everyone,” he said.
Legislation in the package also would require all pharmacies to fill birth control and emergency contraception prescriptions, require insurance companies to cover yearly Pap tests and set standards for sex education curriculum in Michigan schools.
State Rep. Mark Meadows, D-East Lansing, introduced House Bill 5158, a part of the package that would require crisis pregnancy centers to disclose all information about provided services. He said he strongly supports the package.
“It is a pretty broad-reaching and expansive package,” he said. “(The package) runs the gamut of making sure emergency contraception is offered to people in hospitals when rape is involved to making sure when someone has a contraception prescription, we can assure that it will be filled.”
Some organizations, such as Right to Life of Michigan, oppose certain package requirements because they impose on religious and philosophical commitments, said Ed Rivet, Right to Life of Michigan’s legislative director.
“We don’t think any employer with a philosophical or
religious reason to opt out should be mandated to purchase the birth control option with an insurance plan,” he said.
The package would reduce unintended pregnancies in Michigan and, in turn, reduce the abortion rate, Scranton said.
“That is something everyone, from both sides of the aisle, should be able to agree upon,” she said.
Originally Published: 09/14/09 11:28pm
MaximumBob
09/15/09 3:17pmInsanity.
Where are the chants of “Keep your laws off my body!!!”?
THIS is one of the main reasons why health insurance costs are rising. Government mandates on the private contracts between private parties.
You gotta love Liz Ratzloff, though:
“Birth control can be as much as $65 to $75 a month, and what college woman can afford that?”
Sure. Don’t let your inability to afford birth control, a child, or your resulting abortion to get in the way of a good time. Somebody’s got to pay, and Liz wants to spread the costs of HER birth control to the rest of us.
Hey, Liz.
Where’s the “choice” in that?
09/15/09 4:13pmCalm down Bob. Some evils are necessarily. This particular evil I can defiantly live with. This can only increase you chance of getting yourself laid Bob, after that you might calm down a second and think like a Human.
MaximumBob
09/15/09 4:48pmYou’re right.
Liz Ratzloff sounds like she might give it away. After all, she’s gonna stock up her sock drawer with tons of free birth control.
Isn’t it amazing how many “evils” you can live with? Especially when they’re paid for by OTHER PEOPLE.
Concerned Student
09/15/09 6:26pmOh Bob, that’s just silly.
Birth control, not only helps with pregnancy prevention, but a variety of other services such as protecting against:
– pelvic inflammatory disease, which often leads to infertility when left untreated – ovarian cysts – iron deficiency anemia and much more..As a college female who was off birth control for 6 months because it was too expensive, and forming an ovarian cyst during that time that cost $10,000 to remove, I don’t know I guess it would of helped for birth control to be cheaper.
...View full comment »
http://www.thefrogblogg.com/
09/15/09 7:13pmFirst off Bob is probably just bitter because nobody has ever “Given it away” to him.
Second of all, I’m going to go ahead and assume your solution to the problem would be abstinence, something you’re clearly familiar with. Birth control is an essential measure for a majority of women in the world because it is easy and effective.
Without birth control, more people would be getting abortions and nobody wants that.
...View full comment »
"Giving it away"
09/15/09 8:50pmis not the exception Bob, it’s the rule. Are you used to women who sell it??
bob's a tool
09/15/09 9:02pmBob, did you actually read the article or did you get so worked up at the thought of someone actually “giving it away” that you just had to get your filthy hands on the keyboard? You’re a pig.
The package was intended to really put forth common sense prevention measures so we could improve women’s health and prevent unintended pregnancies,”
Insurance companies can for sure absorb the inexpensive cost of montly birth control for their subscribers. And lets be honest, they will help absorb the cost by increasing the premiums of said subscribers.
Kristin
09/15/09 9:43pmNevermind the fact that many women take birth control pills for reasons other than birth control. Serious menstrual symptoms like excessive bleeding and incapacitating pain can be helped by birth control. Abstinence isn’t going to fix those problems!
09/15/09 9:59pmWhat do you mean Other people? I pay taxes same as everyone (including the people in the article)
You would do well to remember that we are all Americans here.Obsessed with Kitten
09/15/09 10:26pmBob is a close minded fool. I get grossed out everytime he uses names like he knows people, like when he says “Liz Ratzloff”
Bob get a vagina, then tell me what’s good.
yeah. spartans rock. get sum.
MaximumBob
09/16/09 8:32amOnly an idiot would talk about taxes when these bills are designed to force insurance companies to foot the bill (and pass it along to its customers). This has NOTHING to do with taxes, but you claim that I haven’t read the article. Brilliant.
Again, it’s mandated coverage like this that increases insurance costs. And the only argument you offer is, “I want it, give it to me!”
“Insurance companies can for sure absorb the inexpensive cost of montly birth control for their subscribers.”
Pure stupidity.
...Wasn’t Liz complaining that these costs were too high?
View full comment »
09/16/09 10:18amHave you even looked at me My Link BOB? I’m a grown man, married with kid, and I own a business. The only mommy and daddy here are me and my wife. I HAVE health insurance, its Blue Cross Blue shield. Bob, we are talking about American girls who cant afford BC. We are not talking about giving BC away to people in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are talking about making health insurers cover birth control. Something they should be doing anyway, but dont to increase there profit margins. Still if that doesn’t sway you, we can meet up somewhere for a high school style fist fight. (After all I am stupid and you can prolly handle me, right?) And we can settle this like Men, what do ya say.
Equal Coverage
09/16/09 10:33amBob,
What makes you think that insurance companies should cover other prescriptions, but not birth control? We’re not talking about giving things away for free. We are saying that insured women should receive the same coverage as insured men. Do you think that insurance companies should not cover other prescriptions, simply because it would be cheaper?
You don’t seem too concerned about paying for other men’s Viagra prescriptions… Why is that, Bob?
MaximumBob
09/16/09 11:07amAnd here come the internet tough guys.
Didn’t even post a name.
Equal Coverage,
I DON’T think insurance companies should be forced to cover ANY prescriptions. That should be up the the insurance provider and the plan. People already have choices among the types of policies/plans they purchase – high/low deductibles, maximum coverage limits, etc.
Each of those CHOICES is designed to let the consumer review and choose the plan that’s best for them.
...View full comment »
09/16/09 11:14amBob these women NEED this, its not a supplement, like you seem to think it is
09/16/09 11:17am
09/16/09 11:18am
09/16/09 11:19amI’m not an internet tough guy, I’ll post my name…I don’t see how “Bob” is really going into detail but ok.
PLEASE! find me, search me out and we can do something about this if you feel it is necessary.
You’re a disgrace.
MaximumBob
09/16/09 11:59amGreat.
Now we’re in the business of determining “need”.
I need food. You gonna buy that for me?
How about some gas money and some cash for whisky?
My own wife takes birth control pills to prevent ovarian cysts (isn’t working). I paid over $6,000 out of pocket last year for my wife’s prescriptions and uncovered procedures.
And yet, you don’t see me clamoring for government intervention or another program.
...View full comment »
Marie
09/16/09 1:11pmBob,
...This has nothing to do with the government covering expenses. I pay $3600 a year for health insurance for my husband and I, we both go for our yearly recommended check ups and RARELY ever go to the doctor at any other time. The price of birth control for me with insurance is $60 I can get the same prescription without insurance for $65. So assuming two doctors visits at $100 and birth control.
View full comment »
09/16/09 1:28pmBob, your all alone here. Your brutally wrong, and you cant seem to see logic. Your point may be valid, but you are fighting the wrong battle for that point. Its a Need, and if you can’t see logic, I can go back to the point about a fist fight. If I cant use reason on you, then maybe alittle discipline will show you the proper respect for womens health. Give up Bob, go away and re-think your ideals and battles. Maybe next time you can pick a fight you can win.
Ben CampbellLogic
09/16/09 1:31pmListen. I actually dont think this proposal is a bad idea. That being said, you’re all missing Bob’s argument entirely.
Bob isn’t saying it should or should not be covered, he’s saying the Government shouldn’t be able to FORCE individual companies to provide it. There are choices in insurance companies and if you dont like the one you have because they dont cover this than go find one that does.
...View full comment »
MaximumBob
09/16/09 1:34pmMarie,
I never said it was about government picking up the tab. That was another poster who didn’t bother to read the article.
This is about government forcing insurance companies (a private entity) to cover specific things in private contracts.
Insurance companies are particularly good at math. They know exactly what brings in revenue and what generates expenses.
...View full comment »
09/16/09 2:02pmRemember what are talking about here. These girls need this covered, it should be covered. There is no reason other than greed to deny them. Greed is a crappy reason when it comes to health. End of story end of agrument. If they won’t do the right thing and cover it voluntarily, then yes by all means lets use this tool( government) to get them to behave. Ben Campbell
09/16/09 2:06pmI would be in favor of a law to make it mandatory that all health insurance providers be non-profit in the state of Michigan. Its not as crazy as it sounds (unless your a shareholder) several states that law and it works out nicely.