bananasfoster

New Member
10+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2006
2
0
Status
Medical Student
I'm a first year med student and I just realized that my student health insurance plan is not going to cover the cost of birth control, at all, whether it's generic or not. My previous health insurance plan did cover it so this is a new situation for me. Have any of you confronted this issue, and do you have any creative solutions? I am considering asking a physician for some samples of the birth control that I currently use, but that can only last me so long.
 

burlypie

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 14, 2002
238
0
The Land of "Cheese Cream"
Visit site
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Is there a Planned Parenthood nearby? You may be able to get it at a discount through them. County health clinics may provide it at a discount as well. Otherwise try a generic and suck up the cost if you need to -- even $30+ per month is cheaper than the alternatives!

BTW, what kind of $hitty school/health plan are you with?! I'm horrified that a school wouldn't make sure that contraceptives are covered -- lobby your deans or whoever chooses the health plan for change next year! I'm sure you're not the only gal in this position.

good luck!
 

Shane2150

Junior Mint
10+ Year Member
Jul 21, 2006
43
0
Status
Attending Physician
You aren't the only one...the student "insurance" offered through my medical school also does not cover birth control...although it does pay for 1) Viagra and 2) abortion (only 1 per semester, though--seriously). I just suck it up and pay $33 a month--I am not happy about it, however.
 
About the Ads

LucidSplash

Bloody Plumber
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Feb 27, 2005
2,871
2,857
Status
Attending Physician
That sucks. Our health insurance does (with a copay) but you can also get discounted bc through the student health center. Is that an option at your school?
 

Baby Einstein

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2005
149
1
Status
Have you tried to get a 3-month prescription and send it to a mail-in pharmacy? I have insurance, but I only pay the equivalent of 2 copays for a 3-month supply - a 33% discount, really. Not sure if it works when you're paying full price, but it's worth checking. Otherwise, planned parenthood should be helpful. Condoms will be cheaper, unless your "frequency of use" ;) is very very high. Why do we women always have to be the ones taking care of birth control anyway???
 

EC3

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2006
191
0
Status
why would you expect the school to pay for this? it's not like there's any medical reason for the birth control pill aside from a few rare endocrine disorders.
 

mzeroapplicant

Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 1, 2006
53
0
Status
Pre-Medical
EC3 said:
why would you expect the school to pay for this? it's not like there's any medical reason for the birth control pill aside from a few rare endocrine disorders.
In many cases women who have heavy and painful periods benefit from birth control. Additionally, many women who have endometriosis (which is a fairly common condition) find regular birth control to be an effective way of controlling endometrial tissue growth. Many of the other drugs for endometriosis (e.g. Lupron) have unfortunate side effects, such as permanent bone density loss. I can't think of any other conditions off the top of my head...

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "medical reason". Adults are (by and large) sexually active, and pregnancy is a condition that has many negative side effects (e.g. gestational diabetes, postpartum depression, etc.) I think what you might have meant is that birth control shouldn't be covered because pregnancy is the result of a "lifestyle choice", but hey, so are a MILLION other conditions and we still cover them.
 

Baby Einstein

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2005
149
1
Status
EC3 said:
why would you expect the school to pay for this?
I never understand why they wouldn't. They will pay for the pregnancy and it will cost them a whole lot more. It seems to be a better deal for them to pay for birth control (whether OCP, depo-shot, IUD, or any other medical form of birth control). Sure there are other ways to prevent pregnancy but still.
 

browniegirl86

10+ Year Member
Oct 12, 2004
793
1
Portland, OR
Status
Attending Physician
mzeroapplicant said:
In many cases women who have heavy and painful periods benefit from birth control. Additionally, many women who have endometriosis (which is a fairly common condition) find regular birth control to be an effective way of controlling endometrial tissue growth. Many of the other drugs for endometriosis (e.g. Lupron) have unfortunate side effects, such as permanent bone density loss. I can't think of any other conditions off the top of my head...

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "medical reason". Adults are (by and large) sexually active, and pregnancy is a condition that has many negative side effects (e.g. gestational diabetes, postpartum depression, etc.) I think what you might have meant is that birth control shouldn't be covered because pregnancy is the result of a "lifestyle choice", but hey, so are a MILLION other conditions and we still cover them.
Yes. 100%.

The only reason I (and a lot of other girls I know) got on the pill back in high school was for excruciating periods, and it's been much MUCH better since then. So yes, there are medical reasons. It was my FP who recommended it.

Another side effect of unwanted pregnancy that you forgot to mention is that you end up with a CHILD. Put that in your pipe and smoke it :scared:
 

ghip

Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 29, 2006
94
0
Status
Medical Student
Baby Einstein said:
I never understand why they wouldn't. They will pay for the pregnancy and it will cost them a whole lot more. It seems to be a better deal for them to pay for birth control (whether OCP, depo-shot, IUD, or any other medical form of birth control). Sure there are other ways to prevent pregnancy but still.
I don't think an insurance company that drops coverage for birth control will experience a huge increase in cost due to the extra pregnancies. I think they should cover it, but I don't think it's going to save them any cash.
 

mzeroapplicant

Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 1, 2006
53
0
Status
Pre-Medical
ghip said:
I don't think an insurance company that drops coverage for birth control will experience a huge increase in cost due to the extra pregnancies. I think they should cover it, but I don't think it's going to save them any cash.
This is difficult to say, it would require a brilliant economist with a lot of information to even begin to get at this question. One thing I will mention, however, is that often people assume these companies are more cost effective than they actually are. For example, many insurance companies will refuse to hospitalize someone at a private hospital that is significantly cheaper than their negotiated rates with other hospitals in the area because they don't work with the hospital. And it's important to remember that even a small proportion of unplanned pregnancies holds the potential for great cost, since the insurance company in many cases will be paying medical bills for a dependent child for quite some time.
 

Rex

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
May 18, 2006
8
0
Status
there are certain planned parenthood clinics that if your income is low enough per year they provide all services for free. When i was in college and on work study i went to one and since my total income was so low they gave me exams and pills for free. they ask you to donate if you can, but if you cant, then it is still ok. I'm not sure how you find out which ones, but you could try calling or going online
 
About the Ads

fun8stuff

*hiding from patients*
15+ Year Member
Apr 9, 2003
3,068
42
Visit site
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Rex said:
there are certain planned parenthood clinics that if your income is low enough per year they provide all services for free. When i was in college and on work study i went to one and since my total income was so low they gave me exams and pills for free. they ask you to donate if you can, but if you cant, then it is still ok. I'm not sure how you find out which ones, but you could try calling or going online
it used to be like this, but within the last 1-2 years funding has run dry (thanks bush), at least that is what we were told. Interesting enough, I had heard from a lady who works at a planned parenthood that they got their contraceptive pill packs for lcostfrom drug companies (~$0.25/pack) that used the "donation" as a tax write off.

A lot of your cheap insurances aren't going to cover the pill and you will find it isn't worth it to pay the extra $1-2000 for the better insurance plan that covers it. Just call and ask a few pharmacists to look up what their cheapest birth control pill is, then ask your doc to switch you to it. The one my wife uses is like $20/pack.

I have been surprised at how many med students in my class will purchase the most expensive insurance plan so that they can get their $10 copay to buy their allergy medicine or birth control. If they would just go with the basic plan for at least $2000 less, you get everything else but the Rx coverage. Costs for 1 year supply of birth control and birth control combined is less than $1000!

The planned parenthood in our area costs like $30/pack and $90/annual exam(Cheap), however the PP where we used to live was $20/pack.
 

keepdreaming

Member
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jul 23, 2006
157
0
Status
Pre-Medical
EC3 said:
why would you expect the school to pay for this? it's not like there's any medical reason for the birth control pill aside from a few rare endocrine disorders.

if you're going to ask this, you need to also be asking "why should insurance be covering viagra?"
 

Rex

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
May 18, 2006
8
0
Status
you still can get free pills. as of a few months ago (they give a years supply a a time in the one near where i live), i was still able to get free pills from planned parenthood (but again, only certain ones) if i go to a different one i pay 25 a pack. so there are still ones out there that do it despite bush's budget cuts.

oh yeah and the exam was still free as well
 

psipsina

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jun 24, 2005
1,812
8
N'awlins
Status
Medical Student
mzeroapplicant said:
In many cases women who have heavy and painful periods benefit from birth control. Additionally, many women who have endometriosis (which is a fairly common condition) find regular birth control to be an effective way of controlling endometrial tissue growth. Many of the other drugs for endometriosis (e.g. Lupron) have unfortunate side effects, such as permanent bone density loss. I can't think of any other conditions off the top of my head...

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "medical reason". Adults are (by and large) sexually active, and pregnancy is a condition that has many negative side effects (e.g. gestational diabetes, postpartum depression, etc.) I think what you might have meant is that birth control shouldn't be covered because pregnancy is the result of a "lifestyle choice", but hey, so are a MILLION other conditions and we still cover them.
I have endometriosis and continuous birth control saves me from having expensive and painful laproscopic surgeries every few years. I have had to fight for insurance companies to cover more than 12 packets of birth control per year (I don't take the inactive pills but go directly to a new pack) but I have never had a company say they wouldn't cover my pills. Well I don't know the details of my student plan, but if a company says they won't cover somthing prescribed for me to control a disease, they would certainly have a fight on their hands.
 

Stitch626

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Nov 21, 2004
233
0
Houston
Status
psipsina said:
I have endometriosis and continuous birth control saves me from having expensive and painful laproscopic surgeries every few years. I have had to fight for insurance companies to cover more than 12 packets of birth control per year (I don't take the inactive pills but go directly to a new pack) but I have never had a company say they wouldn't cover my pills. Well I don't know the details of my student plan, but if a company says they won't cover somthing prescribed for me to control a disease, they would certainly have a fight on their hands.
Same situation here.

And with an estimated prevalence of 2-10% of the female population, endometriosis is hardly a "rare endocrine disorder".
 

njbmd

Guest
Moderator Emeritus
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
May 30, 2001
9,050
146
Gone Walkabout!
Visit site
Status
Attending Physician
bananasfoster said:
I'm a first year med student and I just realized that my student health insurance plan is not going to cover the cost of birth control, at all, whether it's generic or not. My previous health insurance plan did cover it so this is a new situation for me. Have any of you confronted this issue, and do you have any creative solutions? I am considering asking a physician for some samples of the birth control that I currently use, but that can only last me so long.
Hi there,
Our student health plan did not cover birth control but every Family Medicine physician on staff provided free contraception for any medical student who wanted it provided you were in their practice (you need a PC MD anyway). Check out what happens at your school. They also treated us for what the insurance paid and we never had a charge.

njbmd :)
 

Skaterbabe74

Senior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Mar 9, 2003
688
1
Colorado Springs, CO
Visit site
Status
Definitely check into the price at the school's health center. I didn't have the student insurance (no insurance at all actually) but through the school's health center I was only paying $15/pack for my pills vs. $22/pack at Planned Parenthood. (I also cycle my pills so end up needing 16 packs a year instead of 12).
 

EC3

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2006
191
0
Status
keepdreaming said:
if you're going to ask this, you need to also be asking "why should insurance be covering viagra?"
Viagra is used to treat erectile dysfunction (an actual medical condition). Last time i checked, preventing conception isn't a medical condition.
 

SoCuteMD

10+ Year Member
Nov 28, 2005
8,677
720
No more rounding!
Status
Attending Physician
EC3 said:
Viagra is used to treat erectile dysfunction (an actual medical condition). Last time i checked, preventing conception isn't a medical condition.
Maybe not, but pregnancy IS a medical condition, and certainly insurance provides funding in order to prevent medical conditions, so providing funding to PREVENT pregnancy would not be outside the realm of possibility.

Not to mention that continuous use of beirth control has been proven to prevent ovarian cancer - another medical condition.
 

JustBreathe

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jun 15, 2005
300
0
Status
The Health Dept. in my city is amazing. I was able to get a year's worth of brand-name BC (13 packs of Yasmin), and a pelvic exam, for a $10 donation. Definitely check it out.
 
About the Ads

mzeroapplicant

Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 1, 2006
53
0
Status
Pre-Medical
EC3 said:
Viagra is used to treat erectile dysfunction (an actual medical condition). Last time i checked, preventing conception isn't a medical condition.
I'm still not clear on what your assertion is. Should insurance refuse to cover any medication that is designed to *prevent* a medical condition? As we've pointed out, pregnancy is a medical condition that has many well documented negative side effects. Why shouldn't insurance cover medications that prevent medical conditions? Birth control is hardly the only medication that is covered by insurance in order to prevent the emergence of a medical condition.

Additionally, in arguing that birth control shouldn't be covered it would be important to address the extent to which many women take birth control because of problems we have discussed (e.g. common difficulties such as heavy and painful periods, endometriosis)
 

EC3

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2006
191
0
Status
mzeroapplicant said:
I'm still not clear on what your assertion is. Should insurance refuse to cover any medication that is designed to *prevent* a medical condition? As we've pointed out, pregnancy is a medical condition that has many well documented negative side effects. Why shouldn't insurance cover medications that prevent medical conditions? Birth control is hardly the only medication that is covered by insurance in order to prevent the emergence of a medical condition.

Additionally, in arguing that birth control shouldn't be covered it would be important to address the extent to which many women take birth control because of problems we have discussed (e.g. common difficulties such as heavy and painful periods, endometriosis)
since many of you seem to be aficionados of the semantics game, perhaps i should clarify that "medical condition" implies something that is physiologically abnormal and needs therapeutic correction. and with that said, despite some of the misconceptions in this thread, pregnancy fails to qualify as a "medical condition"; ergo, it is not surprising to find that the birth control pill lacks insurance coverage.
 

jbrice1639

Cub Fan, Bud Man
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jun 15, 2005
1,814
6
38
Chicago
Status
Medical Student
EC3 said:
since many of you seem to be aficionados of the semantics game, perhaps i should clarify that "medical condition" implies something that is physiologically abnormal and needs therapeutic correction. and with that said, despite some of the misconceptions in this thread, pregnancy fails to qualify as a "medical condition"; ergo, it is not surprising to find that the birth control pill lacks insurance coverage.
however, constipation is a medical condition, and therefore i think my health insurance should pick up my weekly grocery bill so i can have my fresh fruit to avoid this condition. ;)
 

pillowhead

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Oct 25, 2002
1,029
4
Visit site
Status
EC3 said:
since many of you seem to be aficionados of the semantics game, perhaps i should clarify that "medical condition" implies something that is physiologically abnormal and needs therapeutic correction. and with that said, despite some of the misconceptions in this thread, pregnancy fails to qualify as a "medical condition"; ergo, it is not surprising to find that the birth control pill lacks insurance coverage.
well you could argue that erectile dysfunction isn't really a medical condition then. the decrease in testosterone levels and general male virility is well known and a predictable occurrence with age. lower testosterone levels and sexual impotence aren't then necessarily physiologically abnormal.

what about many psych conditions? a woman who has been raped may be experiencing post traumatic stress disorder. she may not have an underlying chemical imbalance or physiologic abnormality as someone with major depressive disorder has, so should her psych coverage not be paid for?

You might not think a completely, healthy pregnancy does not count as a medical condition, but you can bet the medical community thinks it does. When a woman is pregnant, she is encouraged to see a MEDICAL doctor, e.g. an ob/gyn. Every medication and in general everything she puts in her mouth has to be analyzed for potential harm to the fetus--most people without medical conditions can just eat and drink whatever they want within reason. The number of pregnancies a woman has had is part of her past MEDICAL history. If she has a C-section, which occurs with about 25-30% of american pregnancies, that will be part of her past SURGICAL history. Gestational diabetes and pregnancy-induced hypertension are EXCEEDINGLY common medical conditions that are by definition limited to pregnant women.

So you must be joking when you say pregnancy fails to qualify as a medical condition. Wait until you start your clinical rotations in medical school and actually learn something about pregnancy outside of what politicians, preachers, and protestors tell you.
 

EC3

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2006
191
0
Status
pillowhead said:
well you could argue that erectile dysfunction isn't really a medical condition then. the decrease in testosterone levels and general male virility is well known and a predictable occurrence with age. lower testosterone levels and sexual impotence aren't then necessarily physiologically abnormal.

what about many psych conditions? a woman who has been raped may be experiencing post traumatic stress disorder. she may not have an underlying chemical imbalance or physiologic abnormality as someone with major depressive disorder has, so should her psych coverage not be paid for?

You might not think a completely, healthy pregnancy does not count as a medical condition, but you can bet the medical community thinks it does. When a woman is pregnant, she is encouraged to see a MEDICAL doctor, e.g. an ob/gyn. Every medication and in general everything she puts in her mouth has to be analyzed for potential harm to the fetus--most people without medical conditions can just eat and drink whatever they want within reason. The number of pregnancies a woman has had is part of her past MEDICAL history. If she has a C-section, which occurs with about 25-30% of american pregnancies, that will be part of her past SURGICAL history. Gestational diabetes and pregnancy-induced hypertension are EXCEEDINGLY common medical conditions that are by definition limited to pregnant women.

So you must be joking when you say pregnancy fails to qualify as a medical condition. Wait until you start your clinical rotations in medical school and actually learn something about pregnancy outside of what politicians, preachers, and protestors tell you.
you're very good at making it seem like you know what you're talking about; however, my point still remains. pregnancy is not physiologically abnormal. it's 100% normal since if it wasn't, we wouldn't be around as a species. the reason the medical community is inolved is so that we can ensure its normality and PREVENT abnormalities from occurring. but this is all moot conversation since the insurance will cover pregnancy.

stopping the release of a woman's egg and interfering with the natural hormone balance is inducing abnormality. in contrast, ovulation is a perfectly normal and natural process that has been occurring for all of humanity. i cannot making it any more clear than this.
 

Dr.McNinja

Nobel War Prize Winner
Moderator
10+ Year Member
Aug 2, 2006
10,388
7,145
Texas
Status
Attending Physician
EC3 said:
you're very good at making it seem like you know what you're talking about; however, my point still remains. pregnancy is not physiologically abnormal. it's 100% normal since if it wasn't, we wouldn't be around as a species. the reason the medical community is inolved is so that we can ensure its normality and PREVENT abnormalities from occurring. but this is all moot conversation since the insurance will cover pregnancy.

stopping the release of a woman's egg and interfering with the natural hormone balance is inducing abnormality. in contrast, ovulation is a perfectly normal and natural process that has been occurring for all of humanity. i cannot making it any more clear than this.
Pregnancy is a pathologic state. Dying during childbirth is a common cause of death in underdeveloped countries.
Pregnancy is physiologically abnormal compared to a nonpregnant woman. The reason our country has a lower average lifespan than most European countries is actually due to prenatal care, not because they are inherently healthy. The USA's death rate per live birth is just that much higher.
 

mzeroapplicant

Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 1, 2006
53
0
Status
Pre-Medical
Using terms such as natural and normal is terribly imprecise. For instance, it it likely that birth control in some form has been present in every human society (not always chemical birth contol, but the use of methods of birth control), so would the practice of birth control be considered natural? Or would there need to be a biological basis for it to be natural? Or would the presence of birth control in every society be an indication that it is built into our normal genetic makeup? Mainstream biologists would be uncomfortable with using those terms unless they were very precisely defined, because they tend to sneak in assumptions based on our social and cultural experiences. Biologists might use terms such as biological order and biological disorder to get at what you're talking about (biological order is associated with health, biological disorder is associate with illness). but the purpose of medicine is to improve people's health regardless of whether it affects a natural process or not. For example, gene therapy has the potential to alter our genetic makeup in a way that is neither natural nor normal, but nonetheless could preserve our health.

Back to pregnancy: there are women for whom a pregnancy would be guaranteed to be physically dangerous (e.g. a young adolescent). So is it natural and normal for her to get pregnant? Biologically it probably is, even though it might very well kill her. I don't know the answer, but health care is first and foremost about improving people's health and not about making decisions purely based on other concerns. At the heart of this is that no one has provided a compelling reason why being physiologically abnormal should be THE criterion for determining whether something is a medical condition. There are plenty of physiological abnormalities that don't bother people at all and don't constitute medical conditions (e.g. a uterine abnormality that isn't painful and doesn't affect fertility). Conversely, there are situations where someone is physiologically normal and yet a medical condition affects their health in profound ways (e.g. ptsd). If we're going to use this concept of normalcy as crucial to defining a medical condition is, then we need to know why.
 

cbennett

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Jun 3, 2006
178
0
Status
Pre-Health (Field Undecided)
mzeroapplicant said:
Should insurance refuse to cover any medication that is designed to *prevent* a medical condition?
Where do you draw the line. Should insurance companies (medical) pay for the extra side air bag options i just paid 1200 dollars for in my car since they are used to prevent medical conditions? Car accidents are a part in driving which is an essential behavior in society. Sex for pleasure is a non-essential behavior in society. Therefore, according to your argument insurance companies should pay for that as well as my gym membership 40/month as well as for the difference in cost between healthy groceries and cheap non-healthy ones.

Oh, i almost forgot to mention your argument on how women use birth control to relieve pain. What percent of women use it for this purpose?????2-10% a poster wrote above, then why should everyone get it. I pay 15 dollars for dr. sholes(however its spelled) inserts for my shoes because if i dont my feet hurt after standing all day. Should they be covered as well, after all this is to relieve pain?

Your argument is weak at best. Oh and one last one i just thought of which is very relevant. I play ice-hockey(a non essential behavior) for pleasure which has a certain amount of risk of unwanted medical conditions(just like sex) but in order to prevent some of these i buy equipment(like birth control) to prevent these unwanted medical conditions. Do i in anyway feel that i am entitled to free equipement from my health insurance company because with out it i for sure would have a much higher risk for these unwanted medical conditions. No, never did it cross my mind and i feel that anyone who feels that way is a selfish bitch. Why do you feel you are entitled to it? Grow the hell up its your choice to have sex then deal with the costs of it dont pass that on to other people just because they have more money.
 

Stitch626

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Nov 21, 2004
233
0
Houston
Status
cbennett said:
Oh, i almost forgot to mention your argument on how women use birth control to relieve pain. What percent of women use it for this purpose?????2-10% a poster wrote above, then why should everyone get it. I pay 15 dollars for dr. sholes(however its spelled) inserts for my shoes because if i dont my feet hurt after standing all day. Should they be covered as well, after all this is to relieve pain?
You are misquoting me. I said that the estimated prevalence of endometriosis is 2-10%. This is quite different from the primary dysmenorrhea you mention above (which nevertheless is a medical condition that, if severe enough, needs to be treated by a medical doctor).

Birth control is one of the means to control endometriosis. The mechanism behind this is that endometrial implants are stimulated by estrogen and shrunk by progesterone.

Therefore, administration of low-dose estrogen / high-dose progesterone (birth control) pills will cause both a reduction in # and size of endometrial implants- inarguably a desirable outcome, seeing that internal scarring resulting from implants are responsible for the complications that occur with endometriosis (i.e. infertility, GI obstruction, pelvic pain).

Ok..now tell me why insurance shouldn't pay for my birth control pills.....
 

pillowhead

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Oct 25, 2002
1,029
4
Visit site
Status
EC3 said:
you're very good at making it seem like you know what you're talking about; however, my point still remains. pregnancy is not physiologically abnormal. it's 100% normal since if it wasn't, we wouldn't be around as a species. the reason the medical community is inolved is so that we can ensure its normality and PREVENT abnormalities from occurring. but this is all moot conversation since the insurance will cover pregnancy.

stopping the release of a woman's egg and interfering with the natural hormone balance is inducing abnormality. in contrast, ovulation is a perfectly normal and natural process that has been occurring for all of humanity. i cannot making it any more clear than this.
Thank you. That's because I do know what I'm talking about.

So you say ovulation is perfectly normal. Did you know that when a woman is pregnant, she stops ovulating. Doesn't that make her abnormal in pregnancy? It seems like that would make pregnancy a physiologically abnormal process by your reasoning.

Anyway, who cares what "physiologically normal and abnormal" means? These are not medical terms used by medical doctors. Menopause is a physiologic process yet women can suffer tremendously during this totally "physiologically normal process." As physicians and as a society, should we just tell them to suck it up because it's normal to have hot flashes and vaginal dryness and mood swings and they don't to havetreatment paid for because they're going through a "normal process"?
 
About the Ads

pillowhead

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Oct 25, 2002
1,029
4
Visit site
Status
cbennett said:
Sex for pleasure is a non-essential behavior in society.
Eating at McDonalds seven days a week is a non-essential behavior. So let's stop paying for the lipitor that prevents heart attacks in obese patients. We pay to prevent heart attacks for obese people. Why not pay to prevent pregnancy for women? They're both self-induced conditions brought about by non-essential behaviours.

Sex for pleasure is a non-essential behavior in society. How about we stop paying for Viagra? Gov't drug plans do pay for that you know.

And given that 50% of pregnancies in the US are unplanned, you could argue that sex for pleasure IS an essential behavior for society or we wouldn't continue to propagate in enough numbers!
 

mzeroapplicant

Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 1, 2006
53
0
Status
Pre-Medical
cbennett said:
Where do you draw the line.

The slippery slope fallacy is..... a fallacy.

But let me address your analogies as they are hopelessly flawed. First of all, birth control is completely different than hockey or dr. sholes because 99.9% of women need to deal with it at some point in their life. Whether because they are sexually active before marriage or during marriage, women need to cope with this. And unfortunately, even women who don't desire to have sex sometimes are in a situation where they don't have a choice. So while you say that sex is a voluntary activity, and there is definitely an element of truth to that, sex isn't perfectly analogous to other voluntary activities (e.g. hockey) because it is a near universal activity that almost everyone needs to deal with. Indeed the decision not to have sex is not anything like the decision not to play hockey, since not having sex usually entails giving up a meaningful long term relationship.

Secondly, birth control is a medication, so it falls into a completely different category than things like airbags. Car companies are able to make safe airbags, and thus they are held accountable for making good airbags. In contrast, you need a doctor to figure out which kind of birth control is best, and given the numerous side effects, you need a doctor to consult if you experience side effects. Air bags and hockey pads don't require a medical consultation, so medical insurance shouldn't (and doesn't) enter into the picture.

Finally, it is important to remember that birth control differs from hockey equipment and dr. sholes because society has a fundamental interest in allowing people to control the number of chidren they have. Society should (and does) want responsible parents, and allowing people to prevent unwanted pregnancies is an effective means for ensuring that people who don't want to have children don't have to. There is a correct analogy between birth control and airbags: because most people use cars in their everyday life, society holds car companies responsible for producing reasonably safe cars. At the very least, courts allow monetary damages if car companies don't in order to express society's interest. Similarly, society has a crucial interest in allowing women and their partners to decide whether or not to have children. And given that necessary medical expenses are covered in our society by health insurance (for those who have decent insurance), this responsibility would similarly fall on health insurance companies.
 

EC3

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2006
191
0
Status
IbnSina said:
Pregnancy is a pathologic state. Dying during childbirth is a common cause of death in underdeveloped countries.
Pregnancy is physiologically abnormal compared to a nonpregnant woman. The reason our country has a lower average lifespan than most European countries is actually due to prenatal care, not because they are inherently healthy. The USA's death rate per live birth is just that much higher.
i think you've been drinking the koolaide for a bit too long. pregnancy cannot be a pathological state since it is the sine qua non for human existence. you can persist in your assertion that it is such, but if you look up the definition of 'pathology' or 'pathological process' you will find that pregnancy fits neither.

as to your researched conclusion that our lower average lifespan is due to our prenatal care, i believe a direct-line call to NIH director Dr. Zerhouni is in order. You should also relay to him that all sales of ice cream should be immediately halted since whenever ice cream sales increase so do death rates of children.

You should also be sure to leave out that the US health industry measures infant mortality using a more strict set of criteria, that american demographics contain a higher percentage of populations with statistically lower life expectancy, and that the 3 leading causes of death in america are 95% preventable regardless of ability to afford healthcare.
 

Dr.Erin2B

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Sep 24, 2005
27
0
35
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Status
Pre-Medical
If a patient is in pain, I would consider it my responsibility as their physician to relieve it. I think we can all agree on that. I can say with reasonable accuracy that nearly everybody I know that is on the pill started taking it to relieve the pain associated with menstruation. The contraceptive bonus didn't come into play until we all started having sex. I'm not saying that nobody started taking the pill for its contraceptive purpose. I'm saying that many, many people take it to relieve pain.

Done.

It frightens me that people with ideals such that they find it inappropriate to fund the use of hormones to relieve a pain merely because it can be associated with pregnancy, but find it appropriate to fund "improving old men's sex lives" (see the viagra website & commercials, it's not marketed for anything but that) with Viagra are given the opportunity to provide care. At least they're not in politics, I guess.
 

Dr.McNinja

Nobel War Prize Winner
Moderator
10+ Year Member
Aug 2, 2006
10,388
7,145
Texas
Status
Attending Physician
EC3 said:
i think you've been drinking the koolaide for a bit too long. pregnancy cannot be a pathological state since it is the sine qua non for human existence. you can persist in your assertion that it is such, but if you look up the definition of 'pathology' or 'pathological process' you will find that pregnancy fits neither.
So, a hypercoagulable state is not pathologic? Decreased hematocrit? Respiratory alkalosis? Pre-ecclampsia, ecclampsia, HELLP? These all can occur during pregnancy, and the first three almost always occur.


As for your other diatribe, why is it that the UK has a higher life expectancy from childhood, but the US has a higher expectancy after the age of 65?
That answer would be childhood mortality, and those statistics are easy to find.

I really like the name dropping too, that makes your argument that much more effective. Perhaps you should d/c the misogyny somewhat, and realize that birth control costs much less per month than pregnancy across a population.
 

Doctor Bagel

so cheap and juicy
Moderator Emeritus
15+ Year Member
Sep 26, 2002
10,919
1,122
from the ministry of information
Status
Attending Physician
I opted for our buy down health insurance which doesn't cover prescriptions, but I think most schools do have a cheap supply of birth control through their clinics. In law school, I got bc pills for $10/package through the school pharmacy. You couldn't get everything, but the selection was pretty broad (all ortho for example). If you can't find anything, I'd also recommend switching to generic. I've taken generic for ages and have had no complaints. The buyup plan at my school offers bc for $25/package, which is exactly what generic should cost you with no insurance. However, you can get generic cheaper than that if you order a 6 month supply at a place like drugstore.com.

Anyway, there are options, but I agree that insurance should cover it.
 

EC3

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2006
191
0
Status
pillowhead said:
Thank you. That's because I do know what I'm talking about.

So you say ovulation is perfectly normal. Did you know that when a woman is pregnant, she stops ovulating. Doesn't that make her abnormal in pregnancy? It seems like that would make pregnancy a physiologically abnormal process by your reasoning.

Anyway, who cares what "physiologically normal and abnormal" means? These are not medical terms used by medical doctors. Menopause is a physiologic process yet women can suffer tremendously during this totally "physiologically normal process." As physicians and as a society, should we just tell them to suck it up because it's normal to have hot flashes and vaginal dryness and mood swings and they don't to havetreatment paid for because they're going through a "normal process"?
the straw-man arguments never cease to amaze me.

ovulation is normal. pregnancy is normal. to not ovulate during pregnancy is normal.

and your analogy to menopause is flawed. menopause happens to all women regardless of personal choice and may result in undesireable effects. pregnancy, on the other hand, is an active decision, and it too may result in undesireable effects. however, the simple fact that both may yield unwanted consequences does not prove similarity. as has already been pointed out, many activities may result in undesired outcomes and this fact alone doesn't mean something merits insurance coverage.
 

pillowhead

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Oct 25, 2002
1,029
4
Visit site
Status
EC3 said:
menopause happens to all women regardless of personal choice and may result in undesireable effects.
Sex happens to almost all women. To call it a "personal choice" is absurd. Picking out the color of my belt in the morning is a personal choice. Sex is an innate human action driven by a strong sexual instinct. Of course we are not animals (I mean, we are technically but you know what I mean) and personal choice and responsibility are incredibly important. But take the married couple who remained virgins until their wedding night. They are excercising great restraint and are being very responsible but they, too, still have to deal with birth control unless they desire a child within the first year of their marriage (few couples are driven on their honeymoon to have sex purely for the joy of having a child nine months down the road.) Unplanned pregnancies can happen to responsible, religous, married people! Not just poor, unwed teenagers! Shocking!

Very very very few individuals in our society, male or female, remain celibate for their entire lives. Those that do are considered to be at the extreme fringe of society (not in a bad way. But there are very few monks, nuns, and other celibate people in the US). Choice implies two or more possibilities that many semi-reasonable people could perceive choosing. Having sex versus not having sex for a lifetime is not a choice for most reasonable people.
 

EC3

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2006
191
0
Status
IbnSina said:
So, a hypercoagulable state is not pathologic? Decreased hematocrit? Respiratory alkalosis? Pre-ecclampsia, ecclampsia, HELLP? These all can occur during pregnancy, and the first three almost always occur.


As for your other diatribe, why is it that the UK has a higher life expectancy from childhood, but the US has a higher expectancy after the age of 65?
That answer would be childhood mortality, and those statistics are easy to find.

I really like the name dropping too, that makes your argument that much more effective. Perhaps you should d/c the misogyny somewhat, and realize that birth control costs much less per month than pregnancy across a population.
some of the things you have mentioned are in themselves pathologic but taken within the context of pregnancy they are necessary for normal pregnancy. pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, etc. are never normal but they are also not physiological adjuncts to pregnancy like the alkalosis, and to an extent the drop in hematocrit, which is really a dilutional reflection of the fluid retention necessary for a proper pregnancy.

re: your statistics, are you implying that the reason people under 65 have lower expectancy is solely due to child mortality?

also, i think some of the people in this thread have lost sight of the real issue here which is about health insurance coverage for more enjoyment of a voluntary act. everyone continues to want to debate the dangers and normalcy of pregancy but these are logical chaffes that detract from the main issue.

regardless of your view on anything, the fact remains that pregnancy is the result of a 100% voluntary act. the ability to have sex without getting pregnant is a desireable practice, but it's not insurance's role to cover non-medical, self-decided acts of pleasure.

and to reiterate it again. i'm not saying whether insurance SHOULD or SHOULDN'T cover "the pill". i'm just saying that it's not surprising if they choose not to.
 

EC3

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2006
191
0
Status
pillowhead said:
Sex happens to almost all women. To call it a "personal choice" is absurd. Picking out the color of my belt in the morning is a personal choice. Sex is an innate human action driven by a strong sexual instinct. Of course we are not animals (I mean, we are technically but you know what I mean) and personal choice and responsibility are incredibly important. But take the married couple who remained virgins until their wedding night. They are excercising great restraint and are being very responsible but they, too, still have to deal with birth control unless they desire a child within the first year of their marriage (few couples are driven on their honeymoon to have sex purely for the joy of having a child nine months down the road.) Unplanned pregnancies can happen to responsible, religous, married people! Not just poor, unwed teenagers! Shocking!

Very very very few individuals in our society, male or female, remain celibate for their entire lives. Those that do are considered to be at the extreme fringe of society (not in a bad way. But there are very few monks, nuns, and other celibate people in the US). Choice implies two or more possibilities that many semi-reasonable people could perceive choosing. Having sex versus not having sex for a lifetime is not a choice for most reasonable people.
alright, i think we lost one along the way. i stopped reading at "to call it a 'personal choice' is absurd."

i'm not sure which would work better in a rape defense trial. your defense or the chewbacca defense. if only cochran was still around.
 

pillowhead

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Oct 25, 2002
1,029
4
Visit site
Status
EC3 said:
alright, i think we lost one along the way. i stopped reading at "to call it a 'personal choice' is absurd."

i'm not sure which would work better in a rape defense trial. your defense or the chewbacca defense. if only cochran was still around.
maybe you should keep reading. choice involves alternatives. the vast, overwhelming majority of men and women in this country do not consider lifelong celibacy to be a practical alternative.

the incredible number of women who are raped in this country had no choice when they were forced to have sex.

many husbands still believe sex is their "right" and that their wives can't refuse them. those women do not practically speaking, have a choice.

it's so poignant that these type of arguments are generally limited to the pre-allopathic and allopathic forums before presumably most people posting have had significant clinical experience. spend one day at any urban county hospital and then come back and try to argue that birth control shouldn't be covered.

you're little coy insults are just silly. "I think we lost one." "I think you've been drinking the koolaide a little too long." "You almost sound like you know what you're talking about." Grow up and be realistic here. If men were the ones getting pregnant and dealing with menstruation, birth control coverage would have been mandatory a long time age.
 

mzeroapplicant

Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 1, 2006
53
0
Status
Pre-Medical
pillowhead said:
you're little coy insults are just silly. "I think we lost one." "I think you've been drinking the koolaide a little too long." "You almost sound like you know what you're talking about." Grow up and be realistic here. If men were the ones getting pregnant and dealing with menstruation, birth control coverage would have been mandatory a long time age.
I agree, my favorite was a comment about one of my earlier posts:

"No, never did it cross my mind and i feel that anyone who feels that way is a selfish bitch. Why do you feel you are entitled to it? Grow the hell up its your choice to have sex then deal with the costs of it dont pass that on to other people just because they have more money."

First, this person assumes that because I'm arguing birth control should be covered by insurance that I must be female (I'm not). Then, they proceed to lecture us as though anyone who thinks birth control should be covered has some sort of developmental delay.
 

Baby Einstein

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2005
149
1
Status
pillowhead said:
If men were the ones getting pregnant and dealing with menstruation, birth control coverage would have been mandatory a long time ago.
So so so so so so true. Just think about it.
 

cbennett

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Jun 3, 2006
178
0
Status
Pre-Health (Field Undecided)
Stitch626 said:
Ok..now tell me why insurance shouldn't pay for my birth control pills.....
Are you stupid? Did you miss what i said? What is the ****ing reason most people use BIRTH CONTROL pills. Last time i checked the common name was not endometryo... pills. I wonder why they picked up the common name


Marajuana also treats a medical condition in some cases but the majority of people use it to get high so should insurance companies pay for some ninth grader who uses it to get high because sometimes its used to treat a medical condition or should they just pay for the people who use it for the medical condition and not the rest. If you cant see this then you are a total *******.
 

EC3

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 6, 2006
191
0
Status
pillowhead said:
maybe you should keep reading. choice involves alternatives. the vast, overwhelming majority of men and women in this country do not consider lifelong celibacy to be a practical alternative.

the incredible number of women who are raped in this country had no choice when they were forced to have sex.

many husbands still believe sex is their "right" and that their wives can't refuse them. those women do not practically speaking, have a choice.

it's so poignant that these type of arguments are generally limited to the pre-allopathic and allopathic forums before presumably most people posting have had significant clinical experience. spend one day at any urban county hospital and then come back and try to argue that birth control shouldn't be covered.

you're little coy insults are just silly. "I think we lost one." "I think you've been drinking the koolaide a little too long." "You almost sound like you know what you're talking about." Grow up and be realistic here. If men were the ones getting pregnant and dealing with menstruation, birth control coverage would have been mandatory a long time age.
ah, the truth has been elucidated, finally; just a lesson in projectionism i suppose. don't let the man hold you down. sister.
 

MollyMalone

I'm a Score Quadruplet
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Sep 30, 2004
5,796
20
45
The anterosuperior branch of the inferomedial some
Status
cbennett said:
Are you stupid? Did you miss what i said? What is the ****ing reason most people use BIRTH CONTROL pills. Last time i checked the common name was not endometryo... pills. I wonder why they picked up the common name


Marajuana also treats a medical condition in some cases but the majority of people use it to get high so should insurance companies pay for some ninth grader who uses it to get high because sometimes its used to treat a medical condition or should they just pay for the people who use it for the medical condition and not the rest. If you cant see this then you are a total *******.
Calling people who disagree with you stupid is always an impressive debate move. I think more people should do it. It might manage to elevate the standard of public discourse beyond all this sick respect, cordiality, and professionalism in which we have been stuck for far too long.
 

cbennett

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Jun 3, 2006
178
0
Status
Pre-Health (Field Undecided)
MollyMalone said:
Calling people who disagree with you stupid is always an impressive debate move. I think more people should do it. It might manage to elevate the standard of public discourse beyond all this sick respect, cordiality, and professionalism in which we have been stuck for far too long.
Was she being stupid? Yes. you attacked my argument's wording but seemed to miss the real argument.

She said that because some people use birth control for other reasons than birth control everyone should get it........(see post for rest) That is being stupid
 
About the Ads