[identity profile] whoremoan.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] menstrualhut
In my English Comp 2 class we had to do debates and one of the topics was about Viagra and birth control. According to the people who did the debate there are quite a few insurance companies that cover Viagra but not a single form of BC. I haven't done the research on it so I'll just take their word, but the point is if a company provides coverage for Viagra should they also provide coverage for BC?

To me BC should not be viewed as simply an optional pill to prevent pregnancy since there are so many women who use it for very valid health reasons. Viagra's only health benefit seems to be emotional if a man suffers mental anguish from not being able to perform sexually. Therefore, BC should definitely be covered if Viagra is. To not cover it is blatant sexual dicrimination.

Date: 2003-06-16 09:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] macabre-grrl.livejournal.com
This topic angers me to no end. I have no idea why BC is not covered by some insurance, and it's a rotten situation. I think you are right about the necessity of BC as being more than just about flat-out birth control. Even then, however, we should not have to use nonsexual reasons to defend the need to cover birth control. People have sex, and people need to plan their families. Having an unwanted pregnancy can be a major health problem, be it physical or mental or emotional.

This damned culture is so afraid of female sexuality!

Date: 2003-06-16 10:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sorrowbringer.livejournal.com
This damned culture is so afraid of female sexuality!</i. Amen. i agree, its sexual discrimination to not cover BC, but to cover Viagra. There's always the option of starting a petition or something to *your* insurance company if it doesn't cover BC, or going to local government, cos you never know what they'll do. Or not do, if they're anything like MY gov't, they'll laugh at you -_- Good luck with your debate.

Date: 2003-06-17 07:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] annis39.livejournal.com
i still don't understand why, in this money-grubbing capitalist society, insurance companies would rather run the risk of shelling out lots of money for a pregnancy than a little bit for birth control. birth control seems somehow more cost-effective, y'know? they get to keep more of your premium...

Date: 2003-06-17 12:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] merchimerch.livejournal.com
and it gets scarier - i only found out recently that birth control was just made available to unmarried women in 1976! That means that medical or sexual, the single girl didn't have that option until 27 years ago. That totally amazed me when I realize how easy it is for me to get it now, but the price is crazy - I just went back on the pill through the health clinic at my university and it is still $12 a pack, despite my oh so lovely grad student insurance.

Date: 2003-06-17 07:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] greenfairy03.livejournal.com
I think it is outrageous that BC is not covered! UGH I was so disgusted when I went to the pharmacy for the first time by myself a few months ago with a new prescription card from my insurance company, only to have the lady behind the counter turn up her nose and say "Your insurance company doesn't cover THAT." So I am stuck dishing out $32.95 every 4 weeks for my prescription. It makes me so mad! I'm a college student with rent and utility bills to pay each month...money isn't an easy thing to come by for me, and being made to feel like I'm a horrible person for being on birth control doesn't help. I felt like looking that pharmacy lady straight in the eye and saying "Look here, honey, I need these pills to keep me from bitching the hell out of little snots like you." But of course, I didn't. :-) LoL.

June 2012

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
1718 1920212223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 30th, 2026 12:40 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios