'No-cost' birth control under Affordable Care Act begins today

[brooklynite]

Source: Detroit Free Press

(ABC NEWS) - Today is a big day for birth control. Under President Obama's health care reforms private insurance companies have to start providing contraception for free on August 1. That means no more co-pays for birth control.

But while the law goes into effect, only a tiny fraction of the 97 million American women between the ages of 18 and 64 will be able to snag any co-pay free contraception today.

First, only women with private insurance plans will be affected. About 65 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 64 -- those that are old enough to be adults but too young enough to qualify for Medicare -- have private health insurance which they get from a their employer or pay for out of pocket, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

That means the 19 million women between the ages of 18 and 64 who are uninsured will still have to pay for contraception out of pocket.

Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20120801/NEWS07/120801054/no-cost-birth-control-takes-affect-today-affordable-care-act?odyssey=nav%7Chead

[NYC_SKP]

1. What a whiney article. In one year 47 million women will be getting it for free

The article saves the good news for the very end.

By this time next year, though, most of these caveats will disappear and 47 million women will be getting their contraception for free.

It's great news.

[Cal Carpenter]

2. Whiney?

Is intellectual honesty considered whining?

The women who need help the most on this issue are the ones who are still not getting it (eg the uninsured). And 47 million women aren't on birth control pills. Many women in that age bracket are menopausal, celibate, or any number of other reasons that this will not help them.

Many women cannot tolerate birth control pills and use other forms of contraception. Will annual follow-up appointments for women with IUDs or other types of birth control be included in this? (edited to add - it looks like it will. Good news)

Many women will be saving ~$5 to $30/mo on their birth control co-pay. That's great.

But pointing out the drawbacks and limitations in this bill is not whiney. It's telling the whole story and not glossing it over.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Yes, damned fucking whiney. First, article title "No Cost" in quotes.

Yes, the article is honest, but it also reeks of "this isn't good enough" or "it's half-ass", (IMHO).

They could have described it more "intellectually honest" by simply saying that this history legislation, a real milestone for womens' reproductive rights, begins the incremental full coverage program today.

That is my opinion.

[Cal Carpenter]

4. This is the *news*

Not a press release from the administration.

Save the glowing rhetoric for the campaign trail or the ACA website.

Because for the millions of women who have been screwed by our healthcare system, well, they are still basically screwed. Some number more of them may benefit from the health care act in the future (eg insurance subsidies, etc), but for too many millions of women (and men) in this country, actual health care is still going to be out of reach.

For those millions of people, this is half-assed, not good enough. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but it is the truth.

[NYC_SKP]

5. FFS.

The news is great. Anyone who doesn't want to take a moment and celebrate, who just wants to find fault and cry about it, may go right ahead and do so with my blessing.

That it's not perfect shouldn't surprise anyone.

I'm as comfortable as I could possibly be, knowing that this progress is being made despite the odds.

It's a beautiful day for womens' reproductive rights!

[Cal Carpenter]

6. This is published in the Detroit Free Press

It may behoove you to think about what the insurance situation is for most women in Detroit at the moment. Probably not very good.

There are millions of low-income working and unemployed women who will NOT benefit from this. To say they should celebrate, to say that this is a milestone for women's reproductive rights as a whole is a big punch in the face saying - "well, except for you - you (still) don't count - wait your turn, it will come someday". The poorest and most vulnerable rarely do count.

Lots of women will benefit from this, mostly middle-class working people and upper-class people for whom health care is already in reach. Sure, there are exceptions, but there are far, far too many that slip through the cracks.

Perspective is a good thing.

I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[JDPriestly]

9. The bill was half-assed in that it did not move strongly toward even near-universal

coverage until 2014.

Why the long delay? That's six years. It defeats the purpose and has caused a lot of disillusionment. How many people have died for lack of healthcare, for example, early detection of cancer, since the bill passed.

Half-assed -- it's yours, not one I would normally use. But it is appropriate for Congress' work on the ACA in this respect.

[Igel]

7. "No co-pay" Birth Control

It's in quotes for a good reason.

They don't pay directly for it, but it's not no cost, is it? Unless the shippers, manufacturers, packagers, resellers, raw material suppliers (and their workers) all work without pay, they're a cost and that cost gets paid by somebody. It's just distributed over a lot of people, including those who use it.

Like the insurance benefit increase, like the insurance price increase.

[Ron Obvious]

8. I've never understood...

I've never understood why insurance companies haven't always done this as a matter of course. From a purely financial perspective, I mean. Surely birth control is an order of magnitude cheaper than pregnancy, birth, and, all the costs associated with an infant?

It's a slightly strained analogy, but my automobile insurance pays for a ding in my windshield because they know that's much cheaper than inevitably replacing the whole windshield later.

Is this just ideology, or what am I missing?