Starting Aug 1st, 2012 birth control will be free. You can read the article for the full details. I am pretty excited about this because birth control is expensive! The one I am on now is 24/month but the one before that was 50/month. That is just crazy. That will save me so much money. I am also interested to see if this decreases unwanted pregnancies at all.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/free-birth-control-obama-affordable-care-act-080111

^^dont judge, get some of my news from cosmo

I am also interested to see if this decreases unwanted pregnancies but I wonder if it will mean less people using condoms and more STDS. I think young girls/women worry more about pregnancy then STDS so if they can be on bc for free they wont think about using a condom too.

Lauren I didnt think about that but you are right. I hope not but I can see that happening . Especially since people will still have to go out and buy condoms.

I doubt if the unwanted pregnancies will decrease that much. With shows like Teen Mom, and also the human nature desire to start a family, even if it mean by way of the "just add water method" unwanted pregnancies are here to stay. There is always that group of girls that "accidently" become pregnant in an attempt to "catch some guy". But for the girls that really want to use birth control, I think its really good. save a lot of money, becuase it does get expensive.

that is awesome! i think that there will stilll be a lot of teen pregnancies because they need the rx to get the bc.

It's only "free" if you have health insurance. And I say "free" because it isn't actually free. Someone is paying for it somewhere. This is a huge move toward socialized medicine and I am not for it. For most women, being on a birth control pill isn't a necessity. Personally, I'm on it because I don't want to get pregnant. But we could be using condoms. So could the majority of women on the pill. But it's a choice that I make because I like it better. Why should the government, pharmaceutical companies, or anyone else be picking up the tab for something that is simply my personal preference?

It's only "free" if you have health insurance. And I say "free" because it isn't actually free. Someone is paying for it somewhere. This is a huge move toward socialized medicine and I am not for it. For most women, being on a birth control pill isn't a necessity. Personally, I'm on it because I don't want to get pregnant. But we could be using condoms. So could the majority of women on the pill. But it's a choice that I make because I like it better. Why should the government, pharmaceutical companies, or anyone else be picking up the tab for something that is simply my personal preference?

Yes! Yes! Yes! Totally agree!

 Annibel, think about the women who had a hard time paying the copay. They may be insured yes, but if they can't afford the relatively small amount insurance doesn't cover for their birth control, how in blazes are they going to afford having a kid? More than likely, they're going to have to rely on public assistance, and that's going to cost whoever is picking up that tab a lot more than the BC copay.  From a CNN article: 

Supporters also say covering contraception helps the government save money up front. According to an analysis from the Guttmacher Institute, in 2006, of the 2 million publicly funded births, 51% resulted from unintended pregnancies, accounting for more than $11 billion in costs.

You mention the pill isn't necessary, I have to disagree. For some with certain medical conditions, it certainly is. Not only that, but it is more effective at preventing pregnancies than condoms. 


Also, keep in mind, this also means that pap smears and other preventive services, breastfeeding support, and STD counseling are also covered with this new ruling. It's going to mean that, at least for those who are insured, the basic health costs for women will be much more equal to those for men. 

You mention the pill isn't necessary, I have to disagree. For some with certain medical conditions, it certainly is.

I didn't say it wasn't necessary for anyone:

For most women, being on a birth control pill isn't a necessity. Personally, I'm on it because I don't want to get pregnant. But we could be using condoms. So could the majority of women on the pill.

I do understand that pap smears, preventative services and all that other stuff will be covered and how good it is for women to use those services. But the bottom line is that I do not believe that the government should be paying for our healthcare. That is a socialist concept that I do not agree with. IMVHO if someone can't afford a baby, they shouldn't be having sex.

I know you didn't say it wasn't necessary for everyone, but what about those insurred women for whom it is necessary, but can't afford the copay? Or those women who want to use a more reliable form of birth control? 


 The government isn't going to be paying for it, though. Insurance companies will be required to cover the copay:

 Developed by the independent Institute of Medicine, the new guidelines require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services such as well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, and contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible.

i missed the private insurance plan thing. that sucks!

April - I do understand your point of view. I just don't agree. My point is that it's not actually free. Someone is paying for it. Even if the insurance companies are going to be paying for it, it's still not free. This will likely just cause premiums to go up to account for the costs that the insurance companies are going to be saddled with.

Yes, it's going to cost more upfront, but it's going to save more in the long run, what with the unwanted pregnancy prevention (along with other forms of prevention, like cancer, STD-complications, etc).
And yes, someone does have to pay for it, but personally, I'd rather see a large corporation in an industry posting record profits pay than a poor woman, struggling to make ends meet. That person is still paying that insurance company, they're just receiving better service for their money.

Sorry when I said it was going to be free, I meant for the woman using birth control. I should have been more clear. Thank you annibel for clearing that up. You are right that someone else (insurance companies) are still having to pay for it and maybe even us in the premiums.

Annibel- I never really thought about what it meant. I just thought "hey, I dont have to pay for my birth control anymore. That is so cool and I am going to save so much money."

Isnt it required to have health insurance now? I'm glad it's free, I knew a lot of people that couldnt afford the co-pay or didnt have insurance so they'd be going to planned parenthood every month.

Free birth control? That's a big help to everybody's budget. Co-pays in birth control is one of the reason why women see birth control usage as a financial burden. Now woman can freely use birth control without thinking about the expenses. New federal rules, part of medical care reform legislation, have been issued concerning insurance companies, and no insurer will be able to charge co-pay for birth control beginning in 2013. No female with health insurance, as of 2013, will have to pay any money for birth control drugs, though there are some exceptions. The proof is here: Insurance companies cannot demand co-pays for birth control. This is good point for the Obama government just in case Obama is planning to run again for presidential elections.

They may be insured yes, but if they can't afford the relatively small amount insurance doesn't cover for their birth control, how in blazes are they going to afford having a kid? More than likely, they're going to have to rely on public assistance, and that's going to cost whoever is picking up that tab a lot more than the BC copay.

This exactly. I think this new law is a great thing.

And yes, someone does have to pay for it, but personally, I'd rather see a large corporation in an industry posting record profits pay than a poor woman, struggling to make ends meet.

This is a socialist idea. Some people may be ok with our government moving towards the same ideals as places like China. I, however, am not. It is not a corporation's responsibility to take care of the lower class. If they want to help out, that's awesome. But they shouldn't be forced to by our government. That's not the government's place.

Sorry to keep saying this but....This has been happening in the UK for a couple of decades....Our health care isn't necessarily "free" either as we all pay taxes that go towards the National Health System BUT I am much happier subbing someone else's Birth Control than paying for their kids for 18 years. I think it's really bad that it's expensive here in the U.S. I also disagree with under 18's needing Parental Consent to obtain it but that's a whole other debate.
As for the Teen Pregnancy thing...at the end of season show on Teen Mom he asked them how many of them had been on Birth Control and nearly all of them admitted to not using it even though they had access to it...unfortunately the "it won't happen to me" attitude is still going strong.

Posted By annibel on 02 Aug 2011 06:02 PM

 IMVHO if someone can't afford a baby, they shouldn't be having sex.

This is super simplistic. If the Military wasn't paying for your health care and you came upon hard times would you really say "sorry DH we can't afford to have sex this month?".