It would cost me $22,000 to prevent pregnancy from now until menopause. Cheap my ass.

[kpete]

Amanda Marcotte
‏@AmandaMarcotte
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/calculator-birth-control-expensive-really-cost … Without insurance, it would cost me $22,000 to prevent pregnancy from now until menopause. Cheap my ass.

The Angry BoxerMonaEdiebelleCarolyn OwnbeyfrequentfeministLisa Melanie A. Hecate DemetersdatteMockingbird
11:52 AM - 4 Jul 2014

https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/485134001951088641

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/calculator-birth-control-expensive-really-cost

[elleng]

1. They don't want you to do 'IT!'

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I was gonna say

There's a wide world of sex out there that doesn't involve sticking penises in vaginas. And it all disgusts the 'aspirin between your knees' types just as much as birth control.

Hobby Lobby, crafting sodomites since 2014.

[xfundy]

5. Sodomites aren't what you think.

The definition's in Ezekiel, I think. Chapter 9, but I could be wrong.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. The way the fundies used it in blue laws

it seems to cover anal or oral intercourse.

[MADem]

33. Bingo--they're on the "Abstinence is free, you hussy, you!" bandwagon!!!

Profound for the irony-impaired.

[yeoman6987]

35. How many Morning After pills do you need?

I would imagine a few over a life time for emergencies would be needed, but 22,000 dollars worth? That is quite a bit of money. The daily pill is covered so that would not be included in the 22,000.

[LeftyMom]

37. Other companies piggybacking on the HL ruling are opposed to all birth control,

and even to office visits where birth control options are discussed.

[yeoman6987]

38. That really was not the intent of the ruling

The companies are breaking the law and the citizens of the companies need to get back to the Supreme Court. The Court never envisioned the pill being banned by companies, just the abortion bills (4 of them).....everything else was passed by the Court and Holly Lobby is continuing to provide birth control to it's employees.

[LeftyMom]

39. Literally everything you just typed is wrong.

The four methods HL objects to are not "abortion pills". They're the two kinds of IUD on the US market (which are the most effective reversible methods and are the best option for women who can not use hormonal contraceptives) and two kinds of emergency contraceptive. None of them are abortion pills.

The Supremes went back the day after the ruling and informed a lower court to reconsider a ruling against a company that objects to all contraception in light of the HL decision. Other lower courts are making rulings in favor of organizations that reject all birth control based on the Hobby Lobby ruling.

Hobby Lobby's employees earned their health care benefits with their labor and Hobby Lobby gains a tax break for providing a health care plan as part of their compensation package. They want the tax break without meeting the baseline for a plan that qualifies.

[Igel]

40. You're reading the decision with your own dictionary.

In other words, changing meanings as you go. That feels good, and manipulates those who aren't gifted with slightly above-average educated-speaker linguistic competence, but that's about all. Sound and fury, but what, exactly, it means is a bit tricky to figure out ... Because it may not mean anything coherent.

The basis of the decision was that Plan B and IUDs are allegedly abortifacients. And while there's been some research that says they may not be, there's wiggle room there. Now they aren't, now they might be. Depends how you define "abortifacient", to be honest--and using a bit of jargon to impose a definition unilaterally on a rather large speech community is yet more linguistic manipulation. We typically come up with that kind of thing by community consensus and let different communities, including non expert communities, have their own definitions. As long as everybody's clear what definition's being used, no hurt, no foul. SCOTUS uses an elaborated code, which is to say, it's fairly explicit.

In any event, even if the companies do *not* cover any form of birth control whatsoever, this was already envisaged for religious non-profits and a way worked out to ensure coverage. It's just that the *administrative* (not legislated) way that somebody with a different opinion firmly believed would be a good compromise with somebody else's belief system is insufficient and needs revising. Meaning some bureaucrat will revise it. Hard to accept that the bureaucrat failed to adequately understand all points of view before deciding on the perfect solution, but there you have it. It's why bureaucrats really need a good dose of humility and empathy on a regular basis. Compromises are best discussed with the other side and not assumed then imposed.

There's nothing to prevent the same revised kludge from being applied to the for-profit companies that the SCOTUS decision applies to. It just as to be initiated by the employee instead of employer-initiated. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a budget-buster, either.

[LeftyMom]

41. Hobby Lobby's argument relies on a fundamentalist, non-scientific definition of pregnancy.

Here in the real world pregnancy is defined as beginning with implantation. Any debatable, increasingly unlikely, nearly impossible to test for effect reducing the chances of implantation after ovulation would still not be an abortion as defined by the medical profession, as pregnancy begins at implantation.

[Jenoch]

45. I don't think Hobby Lobby is using

'pregnancy' as the basis for their objection. For them the problem they see is ending a 'conceptin'.

[BrotherIvan]

60. You are purposely distorting the issue

At issue is not whether HL "believes" that those forms of contraception are abortificants--which they aren't.

THE POINT IS THAT AN EMPLOYER IS FORCING THEIR RELIGION ONTO THEIR EMPLOYEES.

This has put the rights of the employer, and in this case, a corporation, over the rights of the employeee. What an employee does with their earned benefit is nobody's damned business. That is entirely the problem. Not birth control, not other forms of treatment that religions may object to. Will Muslim employers be able to withhold treatment for alcohol overdose? What about thyroid medications that keep people out of myxedema comas? It doesn't matter. This ruling is an abomination and has revoked the rights of the individual. That is what you are defending.

[kiva]

46. Assuming that you meant "abortion pill"

Your agenda is showing.

[yeoman6987]

51. lol.

Yeah sure. Perhaps yours is.

[kiva]

54. Oh, I make no secret of my agenda,

it includes that safe and legal abortions are available to women. Yours doesn't appear to be that...well, liberal.

Edited to add: And that medication such as morning after pills remain accessible to women.

[gollygee]

55. The morning after pill (Plan B) is not the abortion pill.

They are two entirely different things.

[historylovr]

43. It clearly says Without Insurance.

I'm assuming she's talking about the daily pill too, not Plan B. I've seen a lot of people throwing around $9 and $10/mo, but not every woman is on the same medication. My generic prescription would cost $35/mo. *without* insurance, and if I'd been on it since I was 18, the total so far would be over $16,000. If the author in the op is using a more expensive low dose pill as my oldest was for a while (with insurance and a co-pay of $22/mo.), then yes, $22,000 is believable.

[elehhhhna]

50. planB is not really appropriate to take every time you have sex

it's for emergencies, not post fuc every time.

[yeoman6987]

52. You are adding reason to the discussion

[historylovr]

56. Still don't see where Plan B is coming into it.

There's nothing said that even implies that she's talking about Plan B. Nothing. There's more than one way to prevent a pregnancy, but you guys have latched onto that for some reason. If you go to the article and use the calculator therein, it shows a variety of methods of non-emergency contraception.

[msongs]

3. she could use condoms and have the man provide/pay for them nt

[canoeist52]

6. At $1.00 ea. for 25 years, that would be $9125.00. Not chump-change for 99% of us.

[840high]

8. Around $9/mo

[Egnever]

9. You would have to have a pretty unusual sex life

To attain that number. Very few people on the planet have sex every day for 25 years.

[LeftyMom]

14. I hate to point this out if you don't know, but a good session shoud use more than one condom.

[Egnever]

23. Even then most would not sustain those kind of numbers over 25 years

Maybe in the first couple of years but long term not bloody likely.

[LeftyMom]

25. Wow, I'm kind of sad for you right now.

[Egnever]

29. If you say so... Doesn't change reality

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#frequency

[Skittles]

26. gals don't lose interest if it's fun for them

no indeed

[Egnever]

28. Doesn't have a thing to do with reality

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#frequency

[Skittles]

30. like I said

the stats would be different if it was fun

[phylny]

42. Can't disagree.

Husband and I had sex once or twice a day for most of our marriage, until prostate surgery changed things. It was a helluva lot of fun.

[IronLionZion]

34. I like the way you think!

And personally, I think its worth saving up to get female condoms or at least polyisoprene instead of the cheap latex ones.

And good sessions will include activities that could not possibly result in pregnancy!

[jmowreader]

49. Even if you ARE a three-condom-per-session kinda person...

...nine thousand rubbers over 25 years represents an inordinate amount of fucking.

[kath]

19. Condoms alone are NOT a very effective method of contraception.

Failure rate is quite high, should be used with an additional method, ie spermicidal foam, cream, gel, sponge.

[LeftyMom]

24. They also need to be paired with a lubricant to improve their effectiveness.

And lubricants which aren't damaging to a woman's health are not cheap.

I swear, I had no idea before this week how many dudes were absolutely pig ignorant about basic sex ed stuff.

[awoke_in_2003]

32. No form of birth control is 100%...

that is why a layered defense should be used. And all should be covered by insurance.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. How much a month does the pill cost nowdays????

Ihave not had to deal with that issue since 1972, and have no clue as to current costs for The Pill.

[PoliticAverse]

7. 28 days of Tri-Sprintec at Target is $9.

http://www.target.com/pharmacy/generics-alphabetic#secT
http://www.healthcentral.com/sexual-health/r/medications/tri-sprintec-28-oral-78136

[Egnever]

10. Hmm then that would make the number from the article

Completely made up...

[LeftyMom]

12. No, different women need different methods. They're not one size fits all.

Saying "birth control is $9/mo" because one pill is that cheap is like saying "diabetes care is $4/mo" because some people only need metformin and it's $4 at WalMart.

You also need to factor in that the doctor's visit to get that prescription is $100 or more and HL and other companies with similar objections don't want to pay for any visit that includes a birth control consult.

[Egnever]

16. So is there a much more expensive pill?

I don't agree with the hobby Lobby decision even a little bit but the math on that wasn't even close at $9 a month.

Also as a guy I am fine with getting snipped and now days I hear it is even reversible. If I was younger I would likely do it just for the peace of mind.

[LeftyMom]

20. Yes. Many formulations are more than $50/mo. The nuvaring is about $75/mo.

IUDs are about $500 (mirena, last 5 years) or $750 (paraguard, 12 years) and are the most effective reversible method- shifting more women to them is a big part of the falling abortion/unintended pregnancy rate.

Vasectomies are not reliably reversible. Reversal attempts are also extraordinarily expensive. A reversible method (RISUG) which involves a glue plug in the vas is under investigation, but is not yet approved or widely available.

[jeff47]

21. Yep. Most are $30/mo to $100/mo. There's a few around $200/mo.

At least, the last time I had to pay for them without insurance. That was a few years ago.

(I'm male, and I wasn't there when her options were discussed with her Doctor.)

Only some vasectomies are reversible. You have to ask for a reversible one when you "get snipped". The big problem with the reversible version is the cut ends are much closer together, and sometimes they grow back together on their own. Additionally, reversing doesn't always work.

It's usually a much better idea to be sure you're done having kids, and get the non-reversible version.

[laundry_queen]

48. Mine is $50/month

without insurance. That's the generic version - the brand name was much more. I can't use the most common type of BC pills for numerous reasons...I need a 'special' kind. And that costs significantly more.

[PoliticAverse]

13. Tri-Sprintec is the cheapest generic and Target and Walmart have it at a very cheap price.

Some women can't use it and if they have to use one of the higher priced meds and don't have
a discount pharmacy near them their cost can be much higher. It's a 'ymmv' issue.

[winter is coming]

15. My daughter's is more like $100/month. Not everyone can tolerate every pill. n/t

[Egnever]

18. Well that would definitely bring it much closer

Sorry I have no experience with the cost of the pill or other forms of birth control.

The hobby Lobby ruling is garbage on many levels but when someone said the pill was 9 per month that number didn't work at all for the amount claimed from the article.

Thanks for throwing some more light on the costs.

[winter is coming]

22. In general, the newer pills with lower doses are more expensive.

And some of them even have a small amount of estrogen in the "withdrawal" pills to forestall the migraine/mood swings from hell some women experience on the inactive pills. I'm grateful that my daughter has CHIP so the pills are free. Believe me, before that it was like The Exorcist around here.

[LeftyMom]

11. The Nuvaring is about $75/mo. Pill costs vary wildly depending on which formulation you need.

An IUD is about $700, but lasts for years.

Costs vary wildly depending on which method meets your needs/ causes you the least side effects.

[jeff47]

17. Between $30 and $100.

Some can use the really cheap generic mentioned in another post for $9/mo. Most formulations are between $30/mo and $100/mo.

[MANative]

31. my b/c pills were $36/month, and that was the copay

with insurance covering about 60% of the cost. $36x 12x25 years is $10,800. That's a decent downpayment on a car, or a half a year of mortgage payments. Not a tiny amount of money.

[historylovr]

44. Ugh, the replies on Twitter to this.

I guess that's what happens when Stupid and Hateful mate.

[Quantess]

47. My Meta comment on this

Any DUer who is both a climate change denier and supports the supreme court's ruling needs to stop pretending they belong on DU.

[historylovr]

57. Yep. That is non-negotiable for me as well. nt

[BrotherIvan]

63. I'm very surprised to read it

But then not. That "Big Tent" has obviously gotten way too big.

[Quantess]

64. Naaah. There are plenty of fakers and trolls here.

Stealth trolling is the name of the game.

[McDiggy]

53. ...what's lost in all this...

...is why people with life sustaining medications have to pay copays. You think $15k or so over 30 years is a lot? Try having a congenital heart defect.

Fighting over not having to pay copays for just birth control seems like missing the forest for the trees to me.

[Quantess]

59. That's understandable. You want single-payer healthcare.

I live in a country that has single-payer, and I refuse to move back to the USA until the US adopts single-payer healthcare system.

However, maybe you don't really understand how much THIS particular thing really pisses women off. Viagra to get dicks hard for sex is covered by insurance, no problem. But birth control pills that women take in order to not have unwanted pregnancies (or also for well established medical reasons not related to pregnancy) is seen as slutty! The outrageous double standard is what pisses women off, royally! It is fucking beyond ridiculous, and it also sets a dangerous precedent.

Someone else suggested that this recent S.C. ruling is just another way to distract the people from the larger picture of the terrible things that are going on, and I can resonate with that... it is very likely.

[BrotherIvan]

61. It's not about birth control

It's about a corporation forcing their religion on their employees. Very shortly, it won't just be birth control, it will be other things. It started with 4 forms of contraception for HL and with two days it was all of them for Wheaton. This is a firestorm that hasn't even begun to burn.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. Indeed. And according to the ACA, that's $11,000 from you and $11,000 from me.

But I also have the additional cost of controlling my own fertility, a cost that you won't have to share.

The calculator to which she links, is really fucked up. Out of curiosity, I typed in 22 for a current age and birth control pill as a preferred choice. The calculator indicates that the it would cost $55,000 over a lifetime or $152 a month, or $9722 with insurance.

a) the fact that cost is baked into medical insurance premiums doesn't make it free.
b) ACA compliant policies include the pill. Thus the out of pocket costs are zero for women with insurance.

The ACA requires men and women of the same age pay the same premium, and that women are entitled to contraception but men are not. This means that that her $55,000 lifetime cost is split, while his lifetime cost (is Mother Jones curious what that cost might be?) is not.

[BrotherIvan]

62. Not this shit again

It has been pointed out time and again that males also require specific healthcare that women don't. This is just bullshit. And if you don't want to "pay" for contraception wait till you have to "pay" for a pregnancy. The idea that contraception coverage adds to the overall cost of healthcare is utter, RW bullshit. ONE visit to the emergency room for a heart attack is that much. The cost of medical treatment is through the roof and you think contraception is the problem? FFS.

Do you think that racially inherent diseases should not be covered because you're not of African or Semitic or Asian descent? Should we cut off people with a history of mental illness or cancer or diabetes because that doesn't affect you? Not pay for breast or prostate cancer because that's gender specific? Why are you so worried about what other people might be getting that you aren't?

Contraception is an EXCELLENT investment. It makes sure that people and especially women are healthy. It means they can plan their pregnancies and have the number of children they can financially support (I bet you hate paying for social services for somebody else's kid too). It cost far less than a single pregnancy over a lifetime, and that is a healthy one without a complication. And it is a person's RIGHT who pays for healthcare. For young, healthy women that is the only medicine they use for years. Why should she have to pay for health insurance for the most part she can't use?

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. Wading through the straw, you said this;

And it is a person's RIGHT who pays for healthcare. For young, healthy women that is the only medicine they use for years. Why should she have to pay for health insurance for the most part she can't use?

What does that even mean?

In general, I'm supportive of a publicly funded health care system that takes care of people's needs. Please explain to me why men shouldn't have access to contraception, IPV counseling, STD or diabetes testing? They die younger of 14 of the top 15 causes of death and have 30% less spent on their care.

Men are only important to the ACA calculus because it's important to get them in the system so they can pay for the coverage that the author of the OP is complaining about.

[BrotherIvan]

66. We agree

All of these things should be covered. ALL of them. Preventative medicine is an excellent investment. I am not a fan of the ACA for the reason that it locks in insurance companies that make their money denying care. I want single payer so everyone can get the care they need.

I pay over $6k a year for insurance I have not used in over ten years. Now my deductible is so high on my ACA plan, I won't use it at all unless I am in a big accident or have a medical event. But they still get my money every month (I should have put the cash into an account instead). That is the agreement: insurance companies make the gamble that you won't use as much care as you pay for. Now they cheat the system to make sure you can't. They are not keeping their side of the bargain. Just like your car insurance goes up if you ever use it. The game is rigged.

But the argument that women should be denied necessary--yes, *necessary*--medicine is absurd. Just like men should not be denied any of those things you listed. Instead of a lollipop when you walk out of the office, every person should get a case of condoms and whatever else they want. Early screening for diseases should be no cost and easy access in pharmacies and clinics. All other civilized countries have somehow figured it out, why can't we?

The argument that women should be denied care because somehow men don't get enough is the same RW argument against union benefits. I'm screwed so everyone else should be just as screwed. Instead of arguing FOR necessary benefits.

And just so you know, preventing pregnancy benefits both men and women if they don't wish to have a child. The fact that women are willing to alter their hormones to prevent pregnancy should be applauded, not cut down by men who think it's not their problem.