I lived in the States for a while. I had an excellent ob gyn. Not excellent, however, was the cost of the pill. I had Blue Cross Blue Shield, and my **co-pay** was $15. This is the ACTUAL COST of the pill in Canada. You freaking bet I kept my Canadian prescription current; I'd rather fatten the coffers of Ortho in Canada, where the cost is sane and reasonable, than in the States where obviously some fat cat thinks women had better pay and have hell to pay and let the wrath of the Lord rain down upon them for not doing their duty by procreatin'. Jesus Murphy. I thought it was bad enough with all the ridiculous DTC ads for various drugs on TV and radio, especially those for the pill that ALWAYS, ALWAYS couched birth control within the sanction of a white wedding vow.

This is RETARDED! I mean, my God! God does not want you procreatin', in fact, HE doesn't care. Really. It has nothing to do with "moral" behavior or anything. Moral behaviour: Do NOT do unto others as you would NOT have them do unto you. The rest is just commentary. So said Hillel first, and Jesus dropped the negatives.

This is a measure to clip women's sexuality into a box where they either service like 'ho's (in this day and age, all the better for men who by godly rights get their rocks off and a few extra concubines too) or face the God-intended consequences of vaginal penetration - not a cost-saving device by any means. And all the babies that boom because affordable birth control is not so effective as the pill will still make the drug company money somewhere down the line…when they're already obviously making a pretty penny off of it already, in order to advertise it on prime time TV.

Whether or not this bill, if it passes, ends up actually being better for small businesses negotiating group health care plans (and I'm glad to think at least folks in your situation may gain something, Renee) what infuriates me is the idea that oral contraceptives are somehow not a "legitimate" prescribed medication like any other. We'll pay for any medication your doctor might prescribe to keep you in the healthy population "norm," but the state of being a sexually active woman who does not wish to be pregnant is NOT the norm, it is an exception and does not have to be covered along with everything else.

And it's so short-sighted, because (as I once told a Catholic business owner who wanted to make sure his prescription drug plan wasn't paying for The Pill) paying for the birth control is a heck of a lot cheaper than paying for the birth.

Well, at least we're not returning to the days when single women weren't covered for maternity benefits. Anybody remember that one? Maternity benefits (when they were included at all) were only covered as a benefit for dependents on many group health care policies; they were specifically excluded from the list of employee benefits. You were supposed to be married, your husband was supposed to have a job with benefits, and his benefits were supposed to pay for the baby. I believe a federal law passed in the 70s put an end to that. Wonder if anyone is considering revoking it?

I don't understand how contraception for women is somehow seen only as a women's issue, a women's health concern. Because it sure as hell benefits a lot of men, too.

This bill could potentially have many bad repercussions for women and men. According to the American Diabetes Association, it also provides a loophole around requirements that health insurance plans cover diabetes care.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetesnewsarticle.jsp?storyId=11676443&filename=20060307/ADA200603071141758700337EDIT.xml

Somehow this bill seems like an inapproriate response to the nation's current obesity crisis and skyrocketing rate of diabetes.

But then again, what do I know? I stubbornly won't think of health care as a commodity.

Why does my health care insurance premium pay for any women's birth control pills? Why shouldn't she pay for that herself as part of the cost of having sex? How is this any different from buying a helmet when you ride a bike?

Further, birth control pills actually *cause* many health problems by messing with hormones. Why should a health insurer pay for something that makes the health of it's clients *worse* when there are other things that person could do instead?

Perhaps it makes sense to subsidize birth control as a social policy. But it is a direct transfer of wealth from men to women when it's paid for as part of a group health insurance plan.

Overall, this is just one more sexist policy which subsidize a woman's lifestyle at the expense of a man.

A woman's birth control is a man's freedom to have sex with her without getting her pregnant. It's a lot more reliable than condoms. And married men who don't want to support another child would *much* rather pay for their wife's BC than their own condoms, most of the time. Men should want insurance to cover BC so that married men can provide it to their wives cheaply. You're single, and likely to remain so, but a lot of men aren't.

Condoms are not free because they are over-the-counter. When they come up with the Male Pill, that will be prescription-only and covered by insurance (most likely...) You want women to have to pay for the Pill the way men pay for condoms, get the Pill to go over-the-counter. The price will drop dramatically but it won't be covered by insurance any more. I don't think you want prescription-only condoms, do you? (Now, if you want to fight for insurance to cover OTC meds and treatments, feel free; I'd love to get my cold medicine covered, and I'd be happy to subsidize men's condoms if they'll subsidize my NyQuil.)

BTW, gay men have just as much need for condoms as straight men. Condoms aren't just for preventing pregnancy, they also prevent disease. So you are not subsidizing women's lifestyles, you are subsidizing not getting hepatitis or AIDS.