Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

My birth control costs 100 dollars a month (before my awesome insurance covers all of it).

hrm.... Isn't that more than 1000 dollars a year...?

Dear God, what are you getting, and where are you getting it?

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

What Jubber said. That's by choice of distributor. Major store chains sell them for a few bucks a month.

If you want to argue that the cost of your pills is a legitimate problem then it begs the question why the issue was approached from such a narrow angle of a scenario affecting a small percentage, of another small percentage, of this country's most affluent and over-empowered, and not the wider question of cost for pharmaceuticals for real chronic conditions that cause suffering and death.

The only logical answer is that the cost of meds is not really the issue at all.
This is feminist graft.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

A non-generic version from my gynocologist. The price of my prescription isn't out of the norm. Hell, my roommate's NuvaRing costs her almost 120 a month.

wat lol

even planned parenthood's 'affordable' plan costs ~20 dollars a month for low income women.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR08_vFinal.pdf
Page 18. They skim a lot for political purposes and sheer profiteering.

Administrative expenses are no less than 12% and far higher when expenses that are wholly political such as "public policy", "education", and "service to the field" are factored in.

For point of reference: http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resou ... lPaper.pdf



So far from being "low cost", PP actually is far WORSE than even HMOs and insurance companies, in terms of exploitation for profit.

Why do you get it from your obgyn? I wouldn't be surprised if he takes kickbacks from the pharmaceutical firms. You could just as easily get it from your big-box drugstore.

Target and Wal-Mart sell it for $5/mo tops.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Completely wrong.

This issue is coverage of hormonal medication. You can call it birth control, but really the complaints aren't because people can't fuck, it's because people with serious and possibly life-threatening disorders are being denied medicine because of some religious nutjobs think their fairytales are more important than another person's life.

No one is asking the government to pay for anything. If you think that's the case you are completely misinformed about the issue, government health care already covers birth control. This is about those who are already covered. They are paying out of pocket or are covered through their workplace, as in, it's part of their wages. The compromise was that religious institutions didn't have to provide birth control care, but the insurance companies, who are charging the same amount either way, cannot back out of coverage.

This isn't about sex. There is a long list of conditions for which a doctor would prescribe birth control, from less threatening such as severe cramping/symptoms of pms, to potentially life threatening cases of cysts and Endometriosis.

Dvergar /
Quisling

I can see how that's a reasonable argument, but I know it's a red herring based on what I've been reading in the last week. The use of contraception as a "hormonal medication," while not rare, hardly represents the majority of reasons for which contraception is prescribed. Most plans, even the one at Georgtown about which Ms. Fluke testified, cover the pill for medical purposes (non-contraceptive, that is), and Georgetown is a university with a religious affiliation. If anything, what Ms. Fluke testified in favor of is worse than asking the government to pay for it, because the "hormonal medication" argument is just a bait-and-switch to justify forcing private citizens/organizations to pay for it.



Most plans clearly spell out what they cover, and the cost of plans that don't already cover contraception are going to go up due to this mandate. That doesn't just impact women, it has an effect on everyone in their risk pool. I don't know why I should be paying extra for my premiums to cover the added expense of 'free' contraception for women when I'm not receiving 'free' condoms/vasectomies. Not only is this, as I already said, worse than asking the government to pay for it because it forces the cost onto others who aren't the responsible party, it also opens the doors to legitimate questions about equal protection under law.



I'll agree it isn't about sex, but it's not really about anything you listed above, either.

Zaryi, I don't know what exactly you use for contraception, but my minion that works at the Wal*Mart pharmacy has verified for me that you can get a month's supply of most common birth control medication for $9, though this may not cover anything that isn't a generic.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I like how the argument went from 'no way birth control costs 1000$ a year' to 'you're just getting the wrong kind' when I proved it can and does.

Like any medication, there are variations between brands, and you have to test/shop around to find the one that works the best with the least amount of side effects.

And Jubber, yes, it's a reasonable argument, and if you had paid any attention to Mrs Fluke's testimony, then you'll realize that her friend was denied the coverage/payment for the medication for an ovarian cyst, and ended up having to have her ovaries removed because the college didn't believe that she wasn't going to use the medication for the reason she stated she needed it for.

Also, my mother uses birth control to fight symptoms of menopause despite the fact that she's unable to conceive, and she had to shop around just as much as I did to find a brand that worked for her. It is cheaper than mine, though it doesn't matter because our insurance provider is awesome, and I'm very thankful for that.

Isn't the Universe According to Aestu fascinating?

I'm smart and well-informed. I have no stake in anyone's ideological bullshit. If other people want to believe things that are illogical or wrong that's their choice but it's not a fault that I identify the fallacies.

The fact that I agree and disagree with Jubber, Eturnal, Dvergar and Zaryi according to a cohesive set of facts and ideas that are grounded in no ideology or political affiliation should tell you something.



I am aware of the differences in formulation. Doesn't change the fact the markup is outrageous for an extremely marginal benefit. Tens of millions of Americans make far greater compromises with more important issues.

If the $10/mo pill treats the condition then that's what the patient should take. If they want premium they can get it on their own wallet.

Even in the best of all worlds - which we do not live in - it would be expected that patients make reasonable economic choices.

An excellent comparison would be diabetes. Insulin is expensive and has a short shelf-life, but it saves lives and allows these people to live a reasonably normal life. There are also a variety of other palliative medications of varying expense. It's to be expected that diabetics should get access to the insulin they need to treat their chronic condition but not the best, most expensive top-of-the-line palliatives on the market.

Or asthma - same thing. There are steroid inhalers that are necessary to control the condition, then there are premium palliatives. Humidifiers and breathers can cost anywhere from $50 to a few thousand. Again, it's expected that general coverage provide what they need to get by, but certainly not the most premium options on the market.

1. Why should this issue be regarded any differently than say sutures vs reconstructive surgery, generic vs brand-label meds, or various grades of painkillers or antibiotics or other medications?



Menopause is a natural part of the life cycle and doesn't need to be treated.

This does nothing to address the crux of the matter.

2. Why should this extremely narrow and over-privileged demographic get special treatment?
3. Why should this issue be addressed through massive outlays to inefficient and disreputable third parties?
4. Why are we approaching this purely from the perspective of women and not from the perspective of people who need meds?



Oh man. Her nameless friend that didn't testify supposedly had her ovaries removed for an apparently naturally occurring condition that we've never noticed even existed, needed treatment let alone surgery until a few years ago.

5. Pray tell how women got by before we discovered this condition and realized it urgently required medication and surgery?

It's lies and fearmongering in the service of graft.

...

Can you answer those questions or can't you?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

It's like you think no one could possibly understand things better than you.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. If anything, the fact that you agree with me makes me wonder whether or not I haven't weighted the concerns Zaryi mentions properly.



While I agree with the bulk of that, especially when we're essentially in the midst of switching to a system where we pay for everyone's medical care as a collective, this is the first thing you say that makes me think I haven't credited Zaryi's argument properly. I've personally known people who have tried generic versions of various drugs, only to find those drugs were not, for whatever reason, as effective for them as the name brand. While I find that this is a rare occurrence, it's not one that should be overlooked. If Zaryi has to spend $100 a month because a $9 a month variant causes her some kind of discomfort or doesn't effectively treat what it's meant to treat, then forcing her to use it to save the collective $91 a month kind of defeats the entire purpose of nationalized healthcare...which to me is just another reason why the whole thing is a bad idea.



Again, this is a little absolutist, and while hormonal therapy is probably used in many cases where it isn't needed, there are some women who have serious problems with menopause. Given that this mandate is going to make it possible for more women to use contraception to treat this, though, it's more likely that it's going to be prescribed even when it's not really necessary because there's no cost to either the physician or the end-user. This will increase demand with no guarantee of an increase in supply, which will drive up costs which will have to be absorbed by someone, and that someone is most likely every end-user/customer, whether they will ever use the drug in question or not.



Because making a private business pay the cost does several things at once. It appeals to people's sense of "fuck big business." It avoids any legislative maneuvers to block the mandate based on moral objections (even Al Gore voted for not using taxpayer funds for abortions), and it opens up a huge political opportunity to tell half the voting population that the other party wants them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen with 12 kids. However disreputable insurance companies may be, they're still far more efficient than the government at allocating resources, since, as you yourself note, the government has a bad habit of throwing money into the hands of groups like Planned Parenthood who squander a lot of funds on administration and activism/advocacy.



Not only that, but when Ms. Fluke's other thoughts on socialized medicine/insurance, like her opinion that sexual reassignment surgery should be covered, become more well-known, people are going to see her "testimony" for what it really was: crass political bullshit. Like I keep saying, the people who should have been testifying were doctors in relevant specialties and, because of the way the mandate is going to impact religious institutions, theologians...not 30 year-old still-in-grad-school social activists looking to advance an agenda.



Probably not well, to be honest. Karen used to tell me how terrible she felt all the time until she found a doctor competent enough to diagnose her cysts. By the time they were properly diagnosed, they were very large, somewhere between the size of a golf ball and a tennis ball. Even her family noticed the change, I was constantly being told how I was "lucky" I hadn't met Karen before she had the damned things removed. They cause a lot of physical discomfort and can cause an imbalance in hormones, which leads to many other health issues outside of "crabby bitch." I will be the first to assert that women pull the "hormones" card far too often and generally to justify behavior that is not justifiable, but despite the abuse of the privilege, there are those occasions when it's a legitimate complaint.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I'm pretty happy I was born male.

For the record, as someone who's read about a half-hundred patent cases, I really really love generic companies. It actually kind of surprises me that people still buy brands once the patent is expired and generics are churning them out at 5-10% of the price.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh