Junior Ganymede
We endeavor to give satisfaction

Explaining the contraceptives mandate

March 05th, 2012 by Vader

Follow the money.

I was puzzled why the Obama Administration was pushing the contraceptives mandate so hard when it was such an obvious affront to Catholics (and other faiths concerned about religious liberty.) I assumed the administration simply had its anterior up its posterior again.

Well, now we know the real reason.

 

Comments (8)
Filed under: Deseret Review,There are monkey-boys in the facility | Tags: , ,
March 05th, 2012 11:37:34
8 comments

Bookslinger
March 5, 2012

I was curious about the $1,000/year claim, so I went to http://www.Drugstore.com, and checked the price of birth control pills. Yes, one can spend that much on birth control pills if you don’t care about price.

http://www.drugstore.com/pharmacy/drugindex/rxsearch.asp?search=oral+contraceptives

They vary in price from $32 (Kelnor, Velivet) to $93 (Yaz) for a 28-day (4 week) supply. Slightly cheaper if you buy three 28-day packs at once.

Price varies by dosage as well as by brand.

Multiply the cost for 28 tablets (4 weeks) by 13 to get a year’s worth (52 weeks).

Can someone call their local Planned Parenthood affiliate and find what their price is for low-income women? If online pharmacies can sell them for $32, I would imagine they could be about $10 at PP.


Bookslinger
March 5, 2012

There’s another angle that some feminists are throwing in: Sometimes doctors prescribe birth-control pills (estrogen/progesterone) for reasons other than contraception, such as to reduce cancer risk, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Non-contraceptive_uses
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Health_benefits

However, generally speaking, (I haven’t consulted with insurance companies, but I used to work for a health insurance company) if your doctor says that something is medically needed or necessary for you, and what the doc is prescribing is “usual and customary” for that condition, then health insurance covers it under regular health benefits.

So if a doctor says a woman employee of a Catholic hospital had as _medical need_ (other than birth control that is) for an estrogen/progesterone tablet, the insurance will likely cover it.

As as we see from Drugstore.com, even if a woman has to pay for it out of her own pocket, she’s looking at less than $1.00/day at Planned Parenthood.


Adam G.
March 6, 2012

Books, I’m told that Walmart also sells the generic Pill for about $9/month.


John Mansfield
March 6, 2012

The mandate is a lousy idea, however . . .

I get tired of the argument that there is is some guy, somewhere (online I think) giving grapes away for a penny a pound, so it is just foolish to ever spend five dollars for strawberries. Why, there are pianos and violins you can find at yard sales for $300, if you’ll just spend some time poking around. To spend thousands on one of those instruments is wasteful extravagance.

. . . which is part of the lousiness of the mandate, that it gives everyone standing to bequeath such counsel if they’ve a mind to.


Vader
March 6, 2012

Part of the lousiness is having strawberries subsidized when I’m just fine with grapes.


John Mansfield
March 6, 2012

One’s choice of sweet fruit is a personal matter to be worked out by himself, his doctor, his pharmacy, his insurance company, his employer paying for the insurance, and the members of the current administration charged with formulating for the nation what sort of insurance coverage the employer must pay for. Outside that tight little intimate circle of a democracy of 300 million and its public policies, none has any business telling someone to eat grapes or strawberries.


Bookslinger
March 6, 2012

John Man: in the article that Vader linked to, included in the mandate is a “no deductible, no co-pay” mandate which removes all cost-containment incentives. It makes the Big Pharm companies salivate, because the consumers will have no incentive to purchase the generic version.

Estrogen and progestin, the two and only two active ingredients in oral contraceptives have long had any patents on them expire. They are now commodities, generic essentially, no matter whether purchased from a big player (Lilly/Roche/etc) or a generic-only manufacturer.

The only question a woman and her doctor must work out (once the decision has been made to use oral contraceptives) is the dosage, which can vary from woman to woman, and over the course of time.

Oh, and another thing that can increase the cost is using multiple forms of birth control simultaneously, since no one method is 100%. Condoms used in conjunction with another method, are generally recommended for those who have not already been in a long term monogamous relationship and have not been tested at least 6 months after the last contact with a previous partner.

But yeah, $9/month OC’s at Walmart, $15/month OC’s at PP, plus $.75/each for condoms, this thing about $1,000/year is a big smoke screen. And Vader is right to point to the “follow the money” trail.

Does this money connection fall under the heading of a “secret combination”? The Obama administration in a combination (ie “connection”) with Big Pharma?

I guess the secret is leaking a bit.


MC
March 6, 2012

College-educated single white women are the base of the Democratic Party. They are far more worried about losing them than they are of losing Big Pharma.

Obama calling Ms. Fluke to make sure she was OK was a classic maneuver. Single white women already see Obama as their boyfriend, and it was only appropriate that he would show his compassion and concern for them in the form of Ms. Fluke.

Leave a Reply