Let me begin by saying I think it would totally be worth the federal government’s money to hire Oprah for a commercial advertising the new health insurance mandates. I can just see her saying, “That is contraception and preventative care for YOU and YOU and YOU.” Ah, a political commercial people would pay attention to — anything with Oprah and “free” giveaways.
In fact, beginning today, an estimated 47 million women will benefit from the changes set forth in the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare). While “free” contraceptive is being highlighted, most insurance players are now required to offer a number of women’s preventive health services at no upfront cost (NPR)**. According to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, “Surveys showed that more than half the women in this country delayed or avoided preventive care because of its cost.” Hopefully, the changes that go into affect today will help increase the number of women seeking preventative and basic care.
Of course, there is controversy surrounding this. You really thought that the GOP would let legislation with the words “birth control” in it pass without a hissy fit? I know, I know… I was hoping too. In order to prevent the law from being over turned, Obama issued an exception for all religiously-affiliated organizations to receive an additional year to institute these changes, while the Catholic church (and other religious organizations) reach a compromise with the administration. This resistance also helped build an uprising of private business owners who happen to be religious and don’t want to pay for a health benefit they say violates their beliefs. Why should their beliefs affect their employees’ bodies? Didn’t we get passed that a long time ago when we decided men couldn’t vote for their wives? My thoughts: suck it up selfish bigots. Sadly, a Colorado federal judge decided last Friday that a family owned heating and air conditioning company does not have to follow the new rules for now. I am sure there will be more small lawsuits to follow as Obama administration tries to calm the Catholic church down from their fit (NPR). I would like to note there are many more important things that should be seen by the courts. And then Republicans wonder why bills aren’t being passed to increase jobs… because they keep appealing reproductive health bills!
A short round-up of what you are now entitled to:
- Your insurance company cannot drop you if you become ill. There are also no longer lifetime limits on care or limits on the amount of benefits in one year.
- Insurance companies can no longer require referrals or approval for obstetric or gynecological care.
- Now, at no cost, women under most insurance plans can receive
mammograms every 1-2 years after 40;
cervical cancer screenings;
prenatal screenings & tests;
diabetes and blood pressure screenings/counseling;
depression screenings;
smoking/alcohol cessation programs;
FDA-approved contraceptive;
well women visits;
Lactation consultation and supplies;
Interpersonal & domestic violence screening/counseling;
Gestational diabetes screening;
DNA co-testing for HPV;
Counseling regarding STIs, including HIV;
Screening for HIV.
- Children/young adults can be dependent’s on guardians’ health insurance plans until age 26 and for children 0-19, they cannot be denied based on pre-existing conditions.
- Medicare now covers annual check-ups, mammograms, and other preventive services at no-cost.
Starting in 2014,
- Insurance companies can no longer deny women coverage due to pre-existing conditions (i.e. C-section, breast or cervical cancer, care for domestic/sexual violence).
- Insurers can no longer charge women more than they do men for coverage!!!!
- Maternity coverage must be included in insurance plans.
- Over 10 million women will gain coverage under expanded Medicaid eligibility (however, many states are trying to opt out of this).
- A competitive health marketplace will be available for Americans to shop for new plans.
A cute graphic from Center for America Progress summing up the changes:
**To clear up any confusion, your tax dollars are NOT paying for my birth control, your girlfriend’s birth control, or the lady down the street’s birth control. We are paying for our own birth control through insurance premiums, not tax dollars. What the Affordable Care Act does is help to start making our insurance policies more equitable, not tossing out contraceptives like candy at a parade.
Per Think Progress, 170 Law Professors debunk “religious freedom” argument in contraception debate in a letter to the Obama administration and congressional leaders. Read it here: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/08/01/623971/170-law-professors-debunk-religious-freedom-argument-in-contraception-debate/?mobile=nc
Interesting info-graphic. I’m finding there’s a lot of misinformation about what these new mandates entail, so this is helpful!
I am glad you found it helpful! With bipartisanship and the complexity of ACA, there is a lot of misinformation and confusion out there. Hopefully as everyone begins to accept these mandates, it will clear up.
Let me specify that while all forms of contraception are available at no cost, not all brands are. This Slate article provides more information: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/08/02/free_contraception_depends_on_the_birth_control_brand_.html
And about damn time… Oprah should be the face of contraception advertisement for women in the USA, she’d be awesome!
Now if we could only do the same for maternity leave… I still think it’s ridiculous how maternity leave depends on the company you work at. In most European countries, it’s a nation-wide thing. I think in some of the Scandinavian countries mothers can get up to one year of paid maternity leave?
I agree! I think that America as a whole has a terrible attitude towards pregnancy. I recently wrote a post about how pregnancy is viewed as a disability. Sadly, I think we have a long way to go until the government starts mandating/regulating maternity leave.
Safer sex and all of that wondrousness too. Well done, America. No really. Well fricking done.
It’s about damn time!
Lovely Post!
While I agree that the church or an employer should have any right to dictate what a parishioner or employee does with their body, I am still at a loss to see my taxes should be co-opted to give what amounts to hands out to people. No one will explain that to me…
Your tax dollars are NOT paying for my birth control. I am paying for my birth control through my insurance premiums, not your or my tax dollars. What the Affordable Care Act does is help to start making our insurance policies more equitable.
This article can explain it to you.
I need you as back up when I get into this debate with people – great post and comments!
Women bear the reproductive costs for all society, including dealing with the risk of balancing society’s cost of “unwanted” children who may become a problem for society. Women (by and large) don’t abandon their kids; fathers do it all the time as I’m sure you are aware. (Don’t misunderstand that as a generalization to the good fathers out there; it isn’t.) Also, by and large the reproductive role of women BENEFITS society as a whole–probably more than anything else that happens in a country or its economy. But that’s just the way nature placed the burdens which, in the modern world, are heavy financial burdens. I trust that you understand the logic in respect of balancing the burden in respect of women.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! SOOOOOO much bad information out there….we NEED to get the word out!!!
Reading this reminds me how lucky we are in England to have the NHS (national health service), so many people moan about the NHS because they have to wait a couple of hours in A&E maybe if they were more aware of what its like in other parts of the world they wouldn’t moan so much, yea its not perfect but it’s basically free! There must be a-lot of people ignoring or neglecting their health simply because they can’t afford it, which is just crazy! The importance of your health should not be based on your bank account, i feel quite sad thinking that this is how it is in some places.
My parents went into finiancial dispair in 2005. My mother gor very sick, but because she lost her health insurance, she did not keep up with her VERY EXPENSIVE medications or her doctor’s visits. She had a heartattack and died on March 8, 2006. If she would have had health care, if she would have not worried about the cost, I 100% believe she would be alive today.
That is so sad, I am sorry that happened to you. This is exactly why its wrong though when your sick the last thing you need is money worries, I know medicine is expensive but if the UK can can do it surely America can too.
The NHS is far from perfect btw, a-lot of people abuse the system so I think America should come up with a new improved version
Not going to say I mind saving the $15.00 a month, especially since we already pay so much to even have health insurance!
I always loved the fact my college roommate had her boyfriend pay 50% of contraceptive costs.
Comprehensive and informative! It is unbelievable that large portions of our population oppose this coverage. Well done Lisa.
I’m delighted that young people (like myself) will be covered under a parent’s medical until the age of 26. With the economy the way it is for college students and recent grads, those benefits aren’t readily available.
read your post, sob. thanks for share
Are we entitled to free housing, utilities, groceries and cars?
You are entitled to those the same way you are entitled to these health services — after you pay for them. When you pay for car insurance (as many state governments mandate), you expect to get your car fixed for “free” when you get in an accident, after the deductible is paid. When you pay for health insurance under the ACA, you get your prescriptions for “free”, after your deductible is paid.
What they don’t tell you is that your insurance company can refuse to accept the Obama care guidelines as well! I had the HPV test as per my OBGYN because she said it was part of the new Obama care mandate and insurance companies were “required” to pay for it. Wrong! I got stuck paying the bill because my insurance company “opted out” of the new Obama care guidelines and will not pay the $100 for the test; I’ve been fighting them for over a month, still , they won’t pay.
I will be looking into this. Part of the problem may be that these changes were only mandated on August 1st. In addition, your employer may be one opting out due to religious beliefs. What insurance company/plan do you have?
I’m glad that I stumbled upon your blog from the Freshly Pressed page. This was a great piece… organized and informative. I didn’t know how scary the term “Birth Control” was to American until the recent events of the Affordable Care Act. I work in the health and fitness field and the average joe doesn’t know, that it actually can help women with health conditions…for example…. hormonal reasons, menstrual cramps, and even acne. NOT just preventing someone from becoming pregnant. Thanks for writing.
Fair comment but think twice before letting pharmaceutical companies hock these products (which have major, serious side effects that are, nonetheless, not as serious by far as pregnancy!) for acne, mood swings and the like. Keep the profit issue in mind when you read advertising. Diet and exercise go a long way for the rest of those issues and, co-incidentally, most women’s acne tapers off drastically in the years she’s most likely to go on the pill, so there may be a bit of illusion happening there. I’m cheerfully at an age many take hormone supplements and getting far better results than anyone I know who has gone the hormone supplement/pill route. By all means use the wonderful pill to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but it has side effects and it’s not a panacea for everything.
The point of my comment was not to endorse birth control but rather state that it has other uses.Any women should always see their primary care physician before taking any medication or supplement. My point is that many companies and religious organizations do not want to support “ObamaCare” because they are automatically turned off by the term Birth Control when in reality it can have multiple purposes.
I agree, but I think nobody should be turned off the main purpose, birth control as such, and those organizations just need to get over the notion that they have any business controlling women’s access to something so fundamental to their ability to live a meaningful life. It’s utterly shocking that such a backwards attitude can be that prevalent in America today. Birth control is a necessity.
I agree that all decisions about contraceptives should be made with an informed, critical eye. However, I want to make sure that everyone understands that this is NOT JUST ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES, included are the patch, the pill, the implant, the ring, IUDs, etc. There is a copper IUD that is completely hormone-free (and environmentally friendly).
While I think we all look for a quick fix too often, I would like to say that as someone who suffers from ovarian cysts and PMDD, that the benefits of oral contraceptives outweigh the debilitation I would experience everyday from not taking it. As a non-smoker, the risk of blood clots (arguably the most serious side effect) is minimal. As the commercials say, you should always talk with your doctor before making a decision. Every body is different.
Very good point. That is fantastic! It will make a lot of lives better, really.
I’m glad doctors are going to go to school all those years to be government employees. How noble of them to do that for the good of the collective.
Love it.
That’s excellent
So happy for you guys!
Great article. Women’s health care is just routinely more financially burdensome, from beginning to end, than men’s, due to the extensive impacts of the reproductive situation, and this is ultimately a major, expensive contribution to all of society that nature has placed on us. Of course this burden should be equalized/shared (as much as possible), just as the contributions of women benefit all of society. It is great that you have summed up these health care benefits, as the issue now will be for people to eventually realize what they now have access to. It’s a new way of thinking for a lot of people.
GOOD! and ABOUT TIME that’s all I can say. I just can’t understand these religious people who are so hateful and misogynistic and let’s face it, extremely selfish and greedy.
Reblogging this.
Thank you for spreading the knowledge! While I too have a difficult time understanding imposing beliefs on other because I believe mine are the only true correct beliefs, we must fight the hate with love and understanding. Fighting hate with hate will never result in a compromise.
No it never results in anything positive. But Jesus
Christ. I have a catholic upbringing and though I’m an atheist now its because of this kind of behavior that I became one in the first place. So many Christians out there are complete hypocrites.
Reblogged this on Adventures in Living Abroad and commented:
I’ll post my own normal post tomorrow, but this information needs to get out there to as many people as possible.
Wait a minute.
I’m having difficulty understanding that it used to cost money for an HIV screening in the US.
I mean, I knew you guys had no NHS but jeez…
For folks whose insurance plan years haven’t renewed yet — or for folks without insurance — it can still cost money for an HIV screening in the US.
… but that’s insane! That means that HIV positive people are making other people HIV positive, and if they don’t have the money to… I can’t even begin to compute!
I would like to point out that most health departments and cities of moderate size have free HIV testing at least monthly. Obviously that is not as ideal, but it is possible to get a free HIV test.
Nice post, clearly explains much of what has been unjustly attacked – “your tax dollars are NOT paying for my birth control”
Refreshing…
Reblogged this on Adventures In Austin.
Awesome blog! I love your feminist mindset! http://www.zinespiration.wordpress.com
I am quite frankly mystified by this. Granted I am British, where people’s tax money DOES pay for healthcare, and I can’t get the whole furore over something that is essentially not even that, but at the same time I can’t get the objections over religious exemptions.
Why? Well, I understand it that the new laws require most people to buy health insurance, and this is ‘key’ to the proposal working. But I don’t see why this should mean they have to accept the particular form of health insurance provided by their employer. If the employer has some particular religious objection to the idea of contraception, then fine- let them be able to offer a scheme which doesn’t include it, and the employee to shop around for a provider/scheme which covers that. Well, possibly the mechanics of the whole thing mean it might not work that way, but whatever.
Yes, there is perhaps the argument that they’re not paying for it, but the employee out of her wages, but the tig is it’s still being organised through the employer thant they’re still being associated with it.
As for the whole business of women having the right to control their fertility and how that relates to the provision of contraceptives, that’s a difficult one. Now, being of a Protestant/Evangelical slant I don’t agree with the Catholic church’s strict official stance on contraceptives, but the thing is they believe that and that it would be utterly repugnant to them to be associated with something that might prevent new life coming into the world. After all, the very idea of sex being divorced from at least the possibility of procreation (which is, after all, its primary biological function) as a normal thing is a new one, largely due to the existance of those contraceptives, and is hardly an absolute. It isn’t necessarily, therefore, to do with somehow oppressing women or double standards (whilst the brunt of pregnancy, and its after-effects, is the woman’s*, men, after all, are also the fathers and must share responsibility- so such double standards concerning sex must thus be excluded)- it’s a question of to what extent your rights to have a sex life are limited by the responsibilities of the natural consequences. Or, put simply, if you don’t want to get pregnant, is it right to consider having sex?**
Now as I said though contraceptives to my mind are not entirely wrong (I draw the line at those which may act to eject a fertilised egg, not too far removed if not technically identical to abortion), so my point is more, just how great is the argument for an absolute positive right to them and should it override the right to practice your faith? Modernist secularists seem all to often to erronoeusly take the view that religion is a private matter or limited to internal church politics- it isn’t but something that must be outworked in all life. So rights to allow the free exercise of faith *must* take that into account. Therefore, as long as you are able to access contraceptives somehow, is it not unreasonable that some persons or organisations be free not to be the ones to participate?
For me, the right to free exercise of faith is what is important. Whilst it may not affect me or those of similar beliefs in the US, if this right is limited, it will have consequences for other persons of faith. And let’s not pretend either that our nations are so far apart they cannot influence each other culturally.
*And yes I realise this can be somewhat stressful and fraught with risks and something I, as a man, won’t have to experience first hand.
**That is meant to be an open-ended question and I am not attempting to assume any ‘right’ answer! It’s just something to think about…
… but the thing is they believe that and that it would be utterly repugnant to them to be associated with something that might prevent new life coming into the world.
Things that might be worth explaining: There are multiple “tiers,” if you will, of religious exemptions.
The first would be, say, a “strict” religious exemption (these are *not* necessarily technical terms). For something like this, it’s generally a religious organization that mostly provides services to and insures people who follow said religion (and could reasonably be expected to subscribe to its tenets). So, my church and the small religious high school I attended would fall under this. Not many people are making official objections to this and in fact, a large number of states have this type of religious exemption in place already.
Then would be a broader religious exemption. For something like this, it could be a (nominally) religious organization that provides services to a wider section of the public. So, a large university with a nominal religious affiliation (such as Georgetown in the US) or a religious hospital that provides care to the general public and almost certainly employs some people who don’t practice the affiliated religion could fall under this. These are the types of employers who are being asked — with a one year extension — to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees.
“All kinds of birth control are covered—pills, rings, injections, IUDs, diaphragms, emergency contraception—but not all brands. Insurance companies have a lot of leeway within the regulation to refuse to cover certain brands. For brands that have a generic version, the company can choose to only offer the generic for free. For certain brands that don’t have a generic, they can refuse coverage, requiring the patient to get a new prescription for a different brand that is within the company’s parameters.” http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/08/02/free_contraception_depends_on_the_birth_control_brand_.html
Shared by SitePuan.com
http://www.sitepuan.com/English/contraceptives-for-you-and-you-and-you/