Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says (Page 4)

It's not sacrosanct, but within the issue of a CEO not wanting the insurance to provide it, it's adding cost onto his female employees that the male workers don't have to worry about.  Within the framework of forcing or allowing exemptions to employers, it's why I feel they need to be forced.

As for all the other reasons that birth control is used, I would hope they got treated like any other medically necessary drug... as our system now works.  I'd prefer single payer so you wouldn't have to worry about it.

Young male drivers pay higher premiums for auto insurance than young women - is that discrimination?

If you are referring to heavy periods...optional...not a necessity.  Insurance plans don't often pay for optional stuff (think plastic surgery). 

I am so opposed to birth control I won't even take it for my ridiculously insane heavy periods.  If I can survive anyone can survive. 

The only reason to use BC is to not get pregnant...and you can accomplish that by not having sex or being smart about when you do.

Ooooh Please say yes, I have a teenage son who is about to start learning to drive...

was it the mcdonald's play place?

I know what he is saying but I would be willing to bet the cost savings is minimal. People already using the pill and paying for it, now they will be using the pill and having the insurance company pay for it. Which population of people do you thnk is bIgger? them or the ones that are not using the pill but will start now?

No, no, no. That is because men statistically have a greater rate of accidents so the insurance companies have to pay out more, meaning they need to pay in more. Health insurance is completely different, there is no cost associated with pregnancy that needs to be accounted for by premiums... er... maybe?

It doesn't matter whether a woman by herself, or a couple is paying.  It's still something that must be paid because her place of employment won't allow coverage of something that costs only female employees.

Weird. that post wasn't meant to be blank and i do mean to stay out of it.

Honestly - lots of people's gut feelings. I don't know what's right - but honestly, my drug plan pays for 90% of my drug costs and for a long time that was BC (now preggo) and as someone young and healthy in general this was my ONLY charge to my drug benefit plan - with a very rare Rx for antibiotics or some such other thing.  I pay my employee share of my insurance and the 10% extra for what I used - i was STILL incredibly low cost to my employers plan.  I don't think the coverage of BC for me - was all that big of a load when you compare to those who are more heavy users of the plan for non-BC - let's talk major medical conditions, anti-depressants, etc etc etc and then it's something but in my mind BC is a small portion of overall drug-plan use in an average company (someone may have stats to disprove this)

I do know I could have gotten it more cheaply (maybe for the same as the 10% i did pay) at special clinics but as a hard-working adult why shouldn't be able to access my employer's plan and not have to make special trips in order to do so??

I most certainly can tell you that now that I am pregnant i am cost my heallth plan and employer ALOT more money.  Yhey are benefits of working to which i am entitled - i have done my share and they are offered.

Plus, heavy periods are NOT the only reason other than pregnancy avoidance that BC is prescribed - bad acne, migraines, other period complications - for women who have long and irregular periods (think weeks at a time)

Maybe you agree, maybe you don't but us Canadians had a prime minister who put it very well many moons ago: "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation " (Pierre Trudeau) and I think employers would go a long way if they adopted that attitude too.

No it's not. Taking a pill can help women who have endometriosis - helps prevent build up of tissue outside the uterus - or PCOS - the estrogen can help regulate periods.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml

Again, those are conditions that are NOT life threatening and can be handled WITHOUT the use of BC.  BC in those situation is akin to asking insurance to pay for a b@@b job because you just don't like yours.  Period inconvenient?  Sorry, that's part of life.  It's a side effect of our "I just want to take a pill so I don't have to deal with this annoying thing" culture that's developed.  These problems aren't new.  Women have put up with these non life-threatening conditions for thousands of years without the aid of BC.  It'll be fine...really.

By all accounts endometriosis is excruciating.  Not inconvenient - excruciating.  I don't have it but know those who have.  Take BC, ease the symptoms.  Reduce sick days and help someone live a little easier with it.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it's not useful for others for more than 'inconveniences' as you put it.  I know girls who've had their periods last for weeks upon weeks - which is horrible for bone density and iron levels.  Tell me that it's just an 'inconvenience'

This issue isn't about insurance.

It's about the government forcing a violation of legitimate religious conscience.

We have a Bill of Rights for a reason.

boob jobs should be covered 100%!!!

yeah your other option is a invasive surgery with a long recovery time to remove cysts and fibroids.

and in the case of BOTH disorders mentioned...THEY COME BACK.