Misogyny and Health Care: When it doesn't take two to tango?

Nobody has a right to affordable anything. Things cost what they cost. Rights have nothing to do with it.

Now is it sensible for insurance companies to cover birth control? Sure.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This and That

You ... uh ... "missed"—yeah, that's the word—a sentence in quoting my post:

Overall, it costs less to cover the birth control than all of the unplanned pregnancies. And this is also part of the reason why birth control is included in many public health programs.​

Note the boldfaced portion of the above.

And your response to Bells—

—omits the consideration that there are over 760,000 uninsured nonelderly women in North Carolina; again, see the boldfaced portion above, as well as Bells' point that, "birth control tablets are not just for birth control, but also used to treat quite a few illnesses and problems that plague many women".

But consider an alternative, also from North Carolina, to providing birth control through public health—bribing women:

The city of Greensboro, N.C., has experimented with a program designed for teenage mothers. To prevent these teens from having another child, the city offered each of them $1 a day for every day they were not pregnant. It turns out that the psychological power of that small daily payment is huge. A single dollar a day was enough to push the rate of teen pregnancy down, saving all the incredible costs—human and financial—that go with teen parenting.

(Spiegel)​

You need to be a little more subtle when trying to change the context of the discussion to something more suitable to your needs.

• • •​

Yeah, Americans know that joke already.

You do realize that you're pitching that fit about a cultural argument that includes one side pushing abstinence and an aspirin between the knees?

Since the argument coming from that camp is that women should stop having sex with men, it is fair to consider the outcome. As it is, intimate partner rape in the United States is problematic; those numbers would skyrocket if women, collectively, began denying their heterosexual intimate partners sexual congress. You can certainly let your masculinity feel insulted by that notion, but the bottom line is that people need to stop raping each other. Using the law to structure a sexually-repressed society would not contribute to that outcome.
____________________

Notes:

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. "North Carolina: Nonelderly Uninsured". (n.d.) StateHealthFacts.org. April 5, 2012. http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?sub=40&rgn=35&cat=3

Spiegel, Alex. "Using Psychology To Save You From Yourself". All Things Considered. July 26, 2009. NPR.org. April 5, 2012. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104803094

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And I wasn't actually disagreeing with the BOLDFACED portion of your post Tiassa, which is why I left it out of what I was commenting on.

But in your little story, you framed the Hanover issue as an INSURANCE issue.

Indeed, at the end of your little vignette about men and women and insurance and viagra and birth control: you say:

And the Hanover case, as you started this thread with isn't an Insurance issue, and secondly, as I showed, the Solution you propose is already in place as in almost all cases (~98% of private/company policies as of 2002, and all Federal Workers) it does.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And that's a different issue and one that won't be solved by your "solution" either:

since these women don't have Insurance.

Which is what I meant when I said you had jumped the tracks, you were talking about Hanover's public health decision, but referring to insurance.

I wasn't making a big deal about it, but you were talking to Asguard who isn't that familiar with the US health care systems and I thought that it might be confusing.

PS, since this is about BC, that 760,000 NC figure includes all women between 0 - 64, but if you take only those of reproductive age, that's about ~50% of those women, and it also includes 17% of women who are at or above 250% of the Federal Poverty level, so though they may not have insurance, they can afford BC, and finally only 70% of women are sexually active and you have ~230,000 "at risk" (out of ~2.2 million women of CB age in NC).

And that's a different issue as well, but even back when some insurance companies didn't cover these drugs for BC, most would cover it if prescribed for a different medical condition, but regardless, as pointed out, nearly all insurance companies cover BC now, so the point is moot.

Actually it doesn't mention that this is an ALTERNATIVE to providing BC.

Not changing the context Tiassa, the issue you brought up in the first post and again in your vignette from Hanover Cty had nothing to do with insurance.

 

If the care is provided by the government it should be based on numbers and numbers alone. If it can be shown that it will save money/improve outcomes then we should do it. Morality is not at play here because both abortions and birth control are perfectly legal which indicates that the government has already decided that they are moral/good enough.

I am also perfectly ok with religous organizations not being compeled to provide birth control. No doubt most everyone in the organization practices the religion (at least from what i had seen) so I'm guessing they won't be perturbed too much by it. They could also get another job or seperate insurance or just pay for it out of pocket or the government could kick in for that part so they don't have to pay and violate the church and state separation.

 

Tiassa your a man, and I'm sure at one stage your partner "hasn't been in the mood" probably when she was pregnant for example.

How many times did you rape her?

PB has gone through various times when she wasn't in the mood for sex, when was depressed, when she lost our baby ect and not once did I have the single desire to rape her. Rape and love don't go together, sure rape fantasy may be common but that's a compleatly different matter, rape is about power not sex according to most rape experts so it stands to reason that access to birth control isn't holding back a tired of rapes. It might be stopping cheating and divorces sure but to claim its stopping rape is insulting to EVERYONE, especially rape victims

 

Out of interest what IS the cost of say levlen ed (which is the most common pill used here), last time I bought it for PB it cost me $30 for 3 months. My sister in law got it through ShineSA where she could get it for $5 while she was under age or on a health care card.

 

There is no good answer as different insurance plans would have different co-pay costs but I can buy it online with no insurance for about $20 per month.

Using my insurance it would be the same as you, $10 co-pay or $30 for 3 months.

 

A Note for Asguard

A Note for Asguard

You do realize, do you not, that not every male in the world is like you or me?

And you really need to stop tanking the issues.

Just follow the logical chain:

• The proposition is that women don't need birth control; they should just stop having sex with men.

• Every rape involves someone who denies sexual access to someone else.

• If you think that American men will, as a body, simply accept a mass "sex strike" by women—according to the proposition that they should stop having sex with men—and simply move on with life, you are incredibly naïve.

• Remember that the vast majority of rapists are previously known to their victims. You know, date rape and intimate partner rape are overwhelmingly more common than random strangers raping people.​

You seem to be having some trouble working within the confines of the proposition.

Oral contraception in the United States can run $1,200 a year out of pocket.

According to the Center for American Progress:

Women are struggling to pay for birth control at a time when they need it most.

• Nearly half of women ages 18–34 with household incomes less than $75,000 report they need to delay or limit their childbearing because of economic hardships they’ve experienced in recent years.

• The average income for working adults ages 18–34 is $27,458.​

I would note, in addition, that the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Seattle is over $14,000/yr. That $1,200 can be very important.

But instead of covering birth control through insurance (conscience clause proposals) or public health (irresponsible women argument) it's just better if women stop having sex with men.

Maybe you and I would get by okay in that world, but don't pretend for a moment that in a society like the United States, where the statistics work out to a sexual assault every two and a half minutes, and marital rape accounts for a quarter of all rapes, every man would act like you and me.
____________________

Notes:

Center for American Progress. "The High Costs of Birth Control". February 15, 2012. AmericanProgress.org. April 6, 2012. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/BC_costs.pdf

RentJungle. "Rent trend data in Seattle, Washington". (n.d.) RentJungle.com. April 6, 2012. http://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-seattle-rent-trends/

Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. "How often does sexual assault occur?" (n.d.) RAINN.org. April 6, 2012. http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/frequency-of-sexual-assault

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape. "Partner, Marital or Spousal Rape". (n.d.) PCAR.org. April 6, 2012. http://www.pcar.org/partner-marital-or-spousal-rape

 

1) so yes you believe that all men are rapists in waiting
2) you believe that women don't want sex and those 2 together suggest that your secretly ashamed of your sexuality which is most likely because thats how society programmes boys. I think it's a side effect of the suppression of female sexuality
3) your comment about women being forced to delay having children is an issue in itself, My opinion is that this should actually be something that goverment should be dealing with instead of bailing out wall street execus
4) you still didn't answer my question about the cost of the pill
5) out of interest do you think men (and women) should be able to claim th cost of condoms, female condoms and dental dams? Would be a good idea to make them freely available especially to limit the spread of HIV, other STIs and prevent teen pregancy but you seem to be avoiding this concidering that is the obvious parallel to the pill not viagra
6) you do realise that there is good evidence linking heart disease with erectile dysfunction and also linking treatment for ED with improvements in heart health
7) you do realise that there is a link between ED with divorce rates and divorce rates (and ED rates) with death rates, suicide, mental health rates, heart disease, strokes and other medical conditions
8) if rape is as you claim just about not getting any why do women rape? And men with quite active normal sex lives?
9) if this is about preventing rape and that's just a case of increasing the amount of sex men are having why don't you advocate providing prostitutes? If its just about sex and women don't need or want sex as you claim then providing access to prositutes will a) relive women from this "horrible duty to have sex with there husbands" and b) reduce rape rates right?

 

Bells um are you saying you have 2 logins which is a violation of sciforums policy? Because otherwise that was aimed at Tiassa, not you

 

You ignore posts directed at you an then stick your nose in when it's not. Facepalm whoever you like

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Maybe these women should get a job and spend their own money to buy their contraceptives. Just a thought.

What is so hard about paying for your own pills? Everyone else has to do it. I am a registered nurse. I have had to pay out of pocket expenses at times too. I don't complain about it, primarily because I am not a whiner. I just accept my life and deal with it.

The people who benefit from this government-subsidized crappola are welfare rats, usually, and no amount of benefits will change their underlying attitudes or behaviors. I work on a general medicine floor in CT, and when I have free time during my shift, I sometimes go through the charts in order to see what type of insurance my patients have and who their insurers are, purely out of curiosity. My experience is that my patients who are beneficiaries of medicaid, state-financed insurance, tend to be cut from a different cloth altogether than those who have private insurance. Their attitudes tend to be the most ignorant and most anti-education that I've dealt with.

These are the people who won't change their lifestyles even if you've reinforced diabetic teaching to them three times a day for their whole stay, and then show up a week later with diabetic ketoacidosis again. Or heart failure exacerbation. Or any other preventable readmission to the hospital. No matter how much money you pour down the drain into these people's care, they are ungrateful, chronically unsatisfied, and resentful of the educated professionals who care for them. They are the ones who "don't like the taste of water" and will drink only pepsi or gingerale throughout their stay, will ignore the salads and fruit cups on their meal tray and eat only the roll and the pasta, won't bathe until afternoon, etc, basically what you'd come to expect from a low class upbringing.

Government subsidized healthcare has not been helping these people. Only changing their own attitudes can do that. It has been shown, over and over again, that the poor tend to have less of an ability to delay gratification and defer pleasure until a later time than people who earn more, which is the source of much of their hardship. They have also been shown to have impulsive tendencies which prevent them from saving money when they accumulate a large amount. In other words, they have spending issues.

These are the true problems that need tending to.

 

Hmmm?

Always wonder about figures like that when they come from partisan sources.

So I checked.

Now first of all, the quote says "CAN run" which one would assume means that's the most one could pay out of pocket for Oral Contraceptives and assumes one doesn't have insurance.

But going to the link, that number is supposedly based on TYPICAL Retail prices for OCPs, not the most one can pay.

Now as a TYPICAL price, that number seemed pretty high to me.

And of course it is.

Here's the actual data from a non-biased source:

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/...rticle&id=26932&security=1381&news_iv_ctrl=-1

So, what that comes to is $338 a year for 13 cycles of the OCP for uninsured woman.

If you then add in 1.6 office visits per year the total cost is $437.

Not even close to the $1,200 that was claimed as "typical retail" for uninsured women.

As to women in general, the AVERAGE cost for OCPs for 13 cycles and 1.6 doctor visits per year the total cost is $294.


Of course these costs only apply to the ~28% of the women who use the pill, as ~27% have been sterilized and ~31% rely on the Male for contraception via a condom (16%), Vasectomy (10%) or Withdrawal (5%), and ~12% use IUD/Injectable/Patch/V ring).
Mosher WD and Jones J, Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 29.

 

Notes Around

Right, and I'll try a serious answer to your truckload of rancid tripe when I'm done laughing at it, which should be approximately four minutes and nineteen seconds before the Second Coming of Jesus.

• • •​

Written like a true conservative.

As I've noted before, one of the primary differences between liberals and conservatives is their view of the relationship between individual and collective. Conservatives focus almost solely on the individual, while liberals account for the relationship between individual and collective.

In this case, it costs both individuals and society less over the long run if birth control isn't out of pocket.

You're only making the point. Women probably should go on a "sex strike". Not just for reasons of personal accountability, but because of the disrespect so many men, such as yourself, show them.

And what is so hard about men who can't get it up paying for their own erections? Why should that expense be defrayed by men who can get erections or women who, quite obviously, don't even have penises to make erect?

Ethical, indeed. And now here you are telling us about it.

Actually, that would make a certain amount of sense, since more often than not the uninsured requiring state assistance have less education.

I don't believe I would disagree that our society needs to do a better job educating its citizens. Unfortunately, too many conservatives focus so intently on individuals—namely their own selves—that we keep doing dumb things like cutting education budgets to make sure we can afford to accommodate the extraordinary needs of those unfortunate, downtrodden rich people.

• • •​

From that source:

Similar to the study of the 1996 data, the findings show that "women pay a substantial amount out-of-pocket for OCP," the researchers write. They note that "women paid 58% of total OCP expenditures—a much higher percentage than for other maintenance medicines, such as Lipitor, for which out-of-pocket expenditures amount to 30% of total cost."

An increasing number of women received more than one pack per purchase over time, which is more convenient for women and reduces per-pack out-of-pocket costs. In addition, studies have shown that continuation improves when women receive more pills pack at a time.

However, it is "concerning" that younger women and the uninsured had the highest out-of-pocket expenses, "given that these populations may be least likely to meet these costs," according to the study. It is also "unfortunate" that younger women tended to obtain few pill packs per purchase, as this population is "at higher risk of an unintended pregnancy," the researchers add.​

And then remember that the solution to all this, according to Republicans, is that women need to stop having sex with men.

And, you know, regardless of the question of birth control versus other medical needs, yeah, it's starting to sound like an idea that women should take seriously.

Lysistrata calls, indeed.
____________________

Notes:

National Partnership for Women & Families. "Summary of 'Women's Out-of-Pocket Expenditures and Dispensing Patterns for Oral Contraceptive Pills Between 1996 and 2006'". December 2, 2010. NationalPartnership.org. April 6, 2012. http://www.nationalpartnership.org/...rticle&id=26932&security=1381&news_iv_ctrl=-1

 

More dubious statistics.

Hmmm?

So a little checking is in order.

Seems the first reference is to the DOJ's NCVS and the second is from a preliminary report way back in the early 90s talking about changing how the data for the NCVS is captured to get better data on sexual victimization by people you are familiar with, including family members.

Trouble is the second report is not available to verify the quote actually exists within it without buying it.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...andle=hein.journals/jquart11&div=38&id=&page=

BUT, going to the DOJ site and reading the NCVS files/reports it's pretty clear that the NCVS doesn't appear to collect/report any data specifically on Marital Rape.

To start with, it collects data on Rape, attempted Rape and Sexual Attack as just one catagory: (Major changes included adding a response code of "any rape, attempted rape or other type of sexual attack"), and it doesn't appear to collect it by the subcatagory of Marital Rape either.

That would be within their catagory of "Non-Stranger".

Non-Stranger was then sub-grouped by:

Intimate Partner, but that is defined as current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends.
Other Relative (which we can ignore since there were NONE reported)
and
Friend/Acquaintance

So from their figures we can't determine what % of this is even Rape, let alone Marital Rape.

Here ae the actual figures from the NCVS on Female victims of Rape/Sexual Assault

Code:

Female victims
Total 106,100 100%  
 
Nonstranger  84,240 79% 
[LIST]
[*]Intimate partner 43,200 41% 
[*]Other relative  - -^  <== ^ means less than 10 reports, apparently none. 
[*]Friend/acquaintance 41,040 39%
[/LIST] 

Stranger 21,860 21%^

Now the total Rapes, attempted Rapes and Sexual Assualts in the most recent survey comes to 106,100, which by the way is about every 5 minutes, or half as often as your source claimed.

But even stating the figure that way seems to be just a way to hype the numbers, because just based on population growth, even with a flat rate, this number would appear to go up, so it really isn't a valid metric for a growing population.

In fact, unlike the somewhat alarming impression given by "every 2 1/2 minutes', the NCVS interviewed 68,665 people and came up with just 36 cases, or essentially 1 case per 2,000 people.

So it's not quite as scary sounding when you phrase it correctly, is it?

But that's becaus it is the much more rational metric and the one used by the DOJ and the NCVS because the rates per 1,000 people (aged 12 and over) allows you to make valid comparison of different year's rates even as the population changes.

The actual NCVS rate for Men is .2 per 1,000 and the rate for Women is .8 per 1,000.


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf
http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/papers/1995_011.pdf

 

Based on that I don't think you understand the basic concept of insurance.

From that source:

Not particularly surprising.
When a large percent of your claim base use a medicine continually you generally have to pass on a larger percent of the cost.

Consider if EVERYONE used Medicine X, at a retail cost of $30 per month.

Would having insurance save you ANYTHING?

Of course not.

Indeed just getting the Insurance company in the middle of the transaction would slightly increase the price.

Yes, and unlike your preposterous $1,200 per year as TYPICAL, the cost when done this way was a piddly $5 per pack. Which based on typical rates of sex among young couples has to be cheaper than Condoms.

Yeah, we call it growing up and getting smarter.

You know I looked, and that's actually not part of the Republican platform.

 

It is indeed ironic that you followed up that statement with three paragraphs of whining and complaining about the "welfare rats."

BTW when you're a healthcare professional and you rifle through your patient's charts for information to post on a public forum, you probably shouldn't complain about your patients having poor impulse control.