GOP vs. Birth Control Pill

[Seifer]

That's because they're also pandering to the big companies that provide insurance.

Let BigPharma sell it for $200 and let BigProvider deny coverage. You've got 2 lobbyists making money instead of just 1.

You know, I just thought of something. Why the hell haven't the rights to the birth control pill run their course? Why are there no $10 generic BC pills now? Hasn't 'the pill' been around since the 1950s and 1960s? I assumed that after a certain number of years other companies were free to make a cheaper version of the same drug.

Edit: I looked it up and there are a hell of a lot of generic BC pills, but from what I can see women report that they have more/different side effects with the generics. A bit odd, since generic drugs have to have the same medicines in them (though the fillers may be different).

[bara]

I wonder how much money would be saved if we were willing to pay for birth control?


ive seen estimates that put the child rearing costs from 175,000 to 250,000 from birth to 18. per kid. variance is location.

that doesnt even consider medical costs for the pregnancy or medical issues for the child that may come up.

Cost wise.. providing birth control is way smarter than denying it.

Here is a site that does a great job of cost estimates.

While I agree, pregnancy SHOULD be a personal responsibility to avoid and child rearing the responsibility of the family, we need to be realistic.

upwards of 200,000 a year to raise or a small surgery or pill to prevent.

[ExRetailDrone]

This whole issue is growing incredibly tiresome. Birth control is a medicine just like any other, it just so happens to have numerous uses. Many women use birth control for things OTHER than preventing pregnancy, yet that fact seems to never make it into the talking heads thought processes. I'm on the pill... I've been on the pill for a very long time (and yes, I realize that being on it for an extended period of time may prove detrimental to my fertility, but I don't want kids, so that's a moot point). It's great that I'm able to have sex with my husband without using a condom and not worry much about pregnancy. It's equally as great that I don't get super heavy periods and horrendous cramping that leaves me curled up crying in bed for a day. And I don't even have any medical issues that I know of such as endometriosis. But no, it can be used for a woman to have control over her reproductive system, so any other benefits that she may gain don't matter because THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

I have to admit, too, that I find it kind of amusing that I am currently living in a country where the culture is all about women getting married and popping out kids as soon as possible (seriously, women feel ashamed if they're not married by the time they're 30... my husband's co-teacher is over 40 and has never been married, and she's pretty much seen as a freak ), yet I'm able to wander into my nearest pharmacy, ask for a brand of birth control pill, pay less than $7USD without having to use my insurance, and be on my merry way with another month of protection and lighter periods in my pocket. No doctor's visits necessary (for some brands...others require a prescription), no questions, nothing. And yet the US politicians are turning the whole issue (that should be long since over and done with) into a feeding frenzy when they should be worrying about the real issues that can actually sink the country further >.<

[draco664]

Usually it's more about not having to pay for what should be a personal responsibility. And realistically, if you can't afford birth control or any protection, you shouldn't be having sex because you won't be able to afford the eventual baby.

That's some super-powered prescription rose coloured glasses you're wearing.

I'm a big proponent of personal responsibility - but I'm also a student of human nature. People don't stop having sex just because they can't afford the consequences. They just don't. And pretending that the problem will go away because they *should* is just being willfully blind.

BC shouldn't be insured, because it would bring *up* the cost of insurance for everyone. It should be highly subsidized, because that brings *down* the costs on society.

[Greenday]

I'm a big proponent of personal responsibility - but I'm also a student of human nature. People don't stop having sex just because they can't afford the consequences. They just don't. And pretending that the problem will go away because they *should* is just being willfully blind.

So then where are we disagreeing?

[blas87]

I will do my best to not veer the topic off too far, but someone mentioned generic BC.

I'm on the no-period pill, the generic of it anyway. I hated it at first, but after I gave it a few weeks, it turned out to be the same as the name brand, and it saves me $10. This is not a pill known for helping with acne or anything like that, but it prevents periods, which is great.

Granted, I have an HSA now, with a little money that the company put in and then just a few bucks per paycheck, I don't have to worry about that costing me money unless something else ends up draining that account.

[macphile]

There was some study that found that if women in developing countries got educations and job training, the GDP of those countries would double. It makes sense, really--half the population.

Having kids often leads to not working. Even with our laws that protect leave, a lot of women don't continue working if they can help it.

Many women can't easily get birth control. Some of them work long hours and have trouble affording child care. Their economic power is reduced because they don't have the time or money to improve their own lot. Their kids aren't necessarily getting the best childhood with mom working two jobs or whatever. Now, if you provide these women with birth control, they can get ahead economically. And we don't have kids in the system who are being left behind in some way or another. It's the old cycle of poverty thing, really.

I mean, what do 20 years (say) of birth control cost? And what does a child cost? It's math.

[Andara Bledin]

Having kids often leads to not working. Even with our laws that protect leave, a lot of women don't continue working if they can help it.

Compared to the rest of the developed world, the US' provisions for women who choose to have children are a joke. And if you add in all of the industrialized but not fully developed countries as well, we only manage to climb up to 4th from the bottom.

Then again, women's medicine and related has been so far down the priority list as to be nearly barbaric. Twenty years and insurance still won't cover a second hospital night after a mastectomy, but potentially-deadly impotence pills were approved almost immediately. >_<

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

Compared to the rest of the developed world, the US' provisions for women who choose to have children are a joke.

I read something about one of the Scandinavian countries a while back that offers 18 months of parental leave that can be split between parents and other goodies....but the article also pointed out that stay-at-home parenting beyond that 18 months was unheard of there.

[wolfie]

You know, I just thought of something. Why the hell haven't the rights to the birth control pill run their course? Why are there no $10 generic BC pills now? Hasn't 'the pill' been around since the 1950s and 1960s? I assumed that after a certain number of years other companies were free to make a cheaper version of the same drug.

Edit: I looked it up and there are a hell of a lot of generic BC pills, but from what I can see women report that they have more/different side effects with the generics. A bit odd, since generic drugs have to have the same medicines in them (though the fillers may be different).

One possible reason for the more/different side effects of the generics is that there is no single "The Pill" - there are different formulas (which is why, when a woman reacts badly to one brand, that a different brand could still work well for her - different amounts/ratios of active ingredients). The rights on the older formulas have run their course, and therefore generics can be produced, but the latest "fine tuned" versions with fewer side effects are still under patent protection.