Ugh, don’t read the comments on the Yahoo! story.

WF

Seriously, this is fantastic news! This will allow a fundamental shift in thinking, which will make Birth Control as the norm which women only go off of for the express purpose of having a child that they want, not Birth Control as a luxury item that makes fucking more pleasurable for women that can afford it. When babies become an affirmative process, rather than a losing round of sex roulette, society benefits.

@anoNY2:  True, but this will help distribute the costs of BC among many more people, so while it may not be “free”, it will be more affordable to many women (i.e. almost all of them).  Also, what Ponygirl said.

At a certain point poking the troll stops being fun and becomes tedious.

Whrrglebrrgl!!!
What ever.

This has made my week.
At least the administrative parts of our government continue to work.  Now if only the FCC stand up to big media and tells them to quit blocking innovation we’d see some reversals of the past decades of roll backs of our rights.

Okay, fine.

Available without a co-pay, with long term reductions in premium growth due to the savings incurred by health care reform with an emphasis on prevention.

Which technically means “you and other consumers will be paying less”.

But is experienced in the real world as free.

But you knew that the overly literal reading was an unfair one.  You’re smart enough to realize that.  You just pretended that I was being strictly literal in order to get a cheap superiority trip that was built on air and your own pathetic nature.

@anoNY2 And that’s why people in welfare states are actually happy about paying their taxes.

My first IUD cost me $500. I didn’t realize it would be so much and might not have done it if I had. I put it on my credit card. It turned out to be money very well spent, but yeah, I know a lot of people don’t have $500 sitting around. Hell, I didn’t have it sitting around. My second cost me $90, but would have cost me $850 if I had to pay for it on my own.

So, very good news and long overdue. I’m still kind of stressed out and bummed out about the debt ceiling deal.

@ anoNY2 ... Hey, you know what else isn’t free but is rolled into the price of premiums? Babies. Which are way, way, way more expensive than even the most expensive contraception. Win for women. Win for consumers.

cynical @ 5 - no, not really.  In example - http://executivetravelmagazine.com/blogs/air-travel-news/2011/7/29/inaction-by-congress-halts-us-air-travel-taxes-faa-spending

The other good thing that happened during this “crisis” was a increase in fuel economy requirements for passenger cars.  Obama may have figured out how to work crisis politcis to our advantage.

Sorry, Amanda, but I don’t believe this will ever actually go into effect. 

I expect that the He-Man Women Hater’s Klub among the hard-Reichwing religious loonies will plea for an injunction immediately (and will find some federal court judge who will grant it), and if the case makes it up to the SCOTUS, we can not only expect to have this law thrown out, but they’ll probably toss Griswald too while they’re at it.

I have approximately zero confidence in the country’s ability to make, sign, and uphold good laws.  40-some-odd years of Republican rule have embedded the reactionary thoughts and ideas of the nutcases into our very DNA…

“although I would rather it was the insurance companies themselves making it, and not Obama.”

So, the insurance companies - who are rather pissed they have to provide any health care services at all and would basically rather you paid them the premium for the pure joy of giving them money - are going to do something for the benefit of consumers despite a pretty much unbroken record of shafting the consumer.  Right.  Umm-hmm.  Sure.  And you are saying Amanda believes is fairies?  Pot, kettle, #000000.

anoNY2, your deliberate obtuseness has really gotten old.  You know damn well Amanda didn’t mean “free” in the literal sense.

And Obama wouldn’t have to make the decision if we didn’t have so many right wing He-Man Woman Haterz Klubs like the Family Research Council trying to screw with BC access.

This is great news. My only worry is that now that birth control is free to women who have access to private health insurance, the crazies will double down on poor women. They usually take their frustrations out on the poor so this could end up with Medicaid not covering Pap smears and pre-natal care.

I hate to be debbie downer, but I hope we all realize that if Obama loses next year, as is likely thanks to his having caved whenever it counts on so many things, this provision is getting repealed, just like the majority of HCR provisions. And just as the Bush Tax cuts will never end. There is no way a republican president will allow this to stand and Obama is probably going to lose.

Not that I’m not happy about it, but “on or after August 1, 2012” might as well be the 12th of never. Republicans will absolutely be running against it in the election net year, and we all know we can’t count on Obama to actually defend the policy.

I would rather it was the insurance companies themselves making it, and not Obama

I would rather than trolls make the decision on their own to shut the fuck up, but sometimes the blog moderator has to make the decision for them.

Dammit, MikeEss—I had my Little Rascals reference chambered before yours. 

Stupid trigger finger…

This is a great step toward everyone being able to get the birth control method that best fits their needs, and that is such an important part of keeping the rate of unwanted pregnancy as low as possible.  Excellent news!

@ Ross Lincoln @17:  You know, I hear a lot of lefties predicting that Obama is doomed next year (some in fear, some in spiteful anticipation) but I don’t quite buy it.  He’s vulnerable, sure - the economy is horrible and not liable to get better, or at least not better enough - but his polls are holding steady in the mid-forties (i.e. he’s never dipped as low as Reagan and Clinton had by this point), his fundraising operation is exceeding goals, and all the Republicans have to offer are a rogue’s gallery of loonies.  Their best shot is Mitt Romney, and even in the event that a Mormon with his record somehow got the nomination, I think he’s still got a less-than even chance.  We’re going to have to work for it, but we can do it, and you’ve just given the best answer for those who ask why we should.

Seraph

Great comment

@17

Also, let’s not forget all the states (like FL) that passed legislation prohibiting insurance policies created through the federal health care law from covering abortions. Since these laws use fantasy definitions of pregnancy/abortion I can see them being used to deny contraception coverage.

When it starts being free to you depends on when your insurance plan begins—-it could be as late as 2013 for many women—-but still.

This is where I’m getting confused on this - I’ve seen this language in all the articles and posts about it. Does this mean if you already have active insurance that the rule change does nothing? That it only affects new insurance plans/coverage? If I’m on an insurance plan now and continue on the same plan through the next couple of years…does this new rule have any effect on it?

Alison @24 -

This is where I’m getting confused on this - I’ve seen this language in all the articles and posts about it. Does this mean if you already have active insurance that the rule change does nothing?

If you work for a company that provides insurance, it comes into effect the next time the insurance contract gets signed.  Usually (always? I’m uncertain about this) those are on one-year cycles - your company negotiates a new contract with the insurer every year.  Which is why there are “open enrollment periods” at fixed times for people who previously waived their insurance and want to sign on.  When the new contract comes into effect they’re added to the plan.

This change basically says all future contracts the insurance company writes - including renewals of previous contracts - must cover birth control.  Which is why it doesn’t go into effect for everyone immediately.  if your company’s insurance renewal occurs on July 1, the coverage won’t kick in until July 1 of next year.  If your company’s insurance renewal occurs on September 1, the coverage kicks in in a month.

I don’t know what happens with folks on COBRA or who otherwise are paying their own way without a company HR department negotiating it as a benefit.  But I’d imagine its similar and when their term is up their next contract will have to have it in there.

Ahh, okay - thanks NonyNony! That makes sense.

chingona has a very important point. Compared to even one unplanned baby per woman of reproductive age, this is a huge cost win. So in societal terms not merely free but profitable.

I think that’s excellent, Amanda!
It’s nice to feel that calls and letters make a difference.
Still ambivalent about the debt deal, but that is more reason to fight the Fetus People with all I have.

Does anyone know if it will also not be allowed to go to deductible? Right now my Depo is technically “covered” but I have a 2k deductible and it goes to that so I pay 100% of it.

cynical @ 5 - no, not really.  In example - http://executivetravelmagazine.com/blogs/air-travel-news/2011/7/29/inaction-by-congress-halts-us-air-travel-taxes-faa-spending

Comment #10: helen w. h.

I see your point, but isn’t that a budgeting problem with congress that’s preventing administration from doing its job rather than the administrative offices restricting and revoking previous progress?
You know, kind of like congress’ desire to defund the EPA and FDA?

But it’s sex panic that helped create the modern right-wing populist, and it’s the modern right-wing populist that created the current crisis.

This reminds me of a line from The Fog Of War where McNamara states, “Rationality will not save us.”  He was referring to the events surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I think it applies here as well.  Democracy depends on the give and take of people with different views and agendas, but those must be grounded in some sort of rational thought.

Get the government out of my Medicare is not rational.

Cutting taxes will fix all of our problems is not rational.

That one inch embryo is the same as a three day old baby is not rational.

Rationality will not save us, and I don’t know what the alternative is.

Does anyone know if it will also not be allowed to go to deductible? Right now my Depo is technically “covered” but I have a 2k deductible and it goes to that so I pay 100% of it.

Preventive care like annual checkups, and supposedly now birth control, shouldn’t go to deductible, but it remains to be seen if insurance companies figure out a way to weasel out of it.

Yes, GREAT NEWS that an unconstitutional Super Congress of just 12 members will now be able to railroad any and all cuts to the social safety net.

Half of ‘em will be Republicans, no doubt. Add the Blue Dogs, and covered birth control—like every other benefit to any of us not a plutocrat—will be gone, gone, gone soon enough.

Or, you could do something about it:

Call Your Rep. to Oppose the Super Congress!

CALL YOUR CONGRESS REPS: NO SUPER CONGRESS, AND CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICAID AND MEDICARE!

https://secure.firedoglake.com​/page/signup/SuperCongress

So, the insurance companies - who are rather pissed they have to provide any health care services at all and would basically rather you paid them the premium for the pure joy of giving them money - are going to do something for the benefit of consumers despite a pretty much unbroken record of shafting the consumer.  Right.

The insurance companies ought to be delighted. This covers only insured women, so effectively they are being supported - by the govt. requiring it so they won’t be as vulnerable to lobbying against it - in reducing the pregnancies and births they have to pay out for.

Hey! How about vasectomies, or would that violate some fertile octegenarian code?

What about the menz?

Do note that the Obama Administration is considering a “conscience clause” that would allow some insurers not to cover contraception on religious grounds.

This White House really has a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

prufrock;

Rationality will not save us, and I don’t know what the alternative is.

Force.

This reminds me of one of those confrontations over slavery they had in the 1840s and 50s. It’s not over. They won’t willingly stop until either there’s no social safety net programs at all and no attempt (or even gesture) at protecting consumers or the environment, the poor officially (not just de facto) pay more tax than the rich, there are property-based restrictions on who can vote, unions are illegal, and a substantial percentage of the population are prisoners used for slave labor. Plus all the theocratic stuff.

The only way to make it stop is to beat them into permanent irrelevance. That shouldn’t be too hard; the demographics is moving against them. But they know that, which is why they’re making it harder to vote in all those states they won last year. Seraph gave some good reasons why the next Presidential election would be winnable under normal circumstances—but that’s probably not good enough.

And if we do win? They still think God ordains them and only them to rule. Once they despair of winning democratically (or pseudo-democratically) they will make a play to take power by violence.

If we don’t win? They’ll keep entrenching themselves, until it becomes obvious that we simply don’t have any electoral recourse anymore. Then what? Violence? A general strike? That’s a tactical decision best left for after we’ve seen the particulars of the situation; something like that will be required, in any case.

@ 30, yes, except that it shows that even without direct interference, congress can bugger up the admin processes of well functioning departments (which the FAA more or less is, in comparison among gov departments I’ve worked with over the last decade).

I think free birth control will actually be free, because it will save insurance companies money in the long run.  Pregnancy and childbirth are expensive for insurance companies, and anyone who bothered to look beyond the next quarter or the next year would have made BC free a long time ago.  This short-term thinking is toxic and is part of the reason we are in this mess to begin with.  So this will cost insurance companies a little more at first and will save them tons in the long run.  Whether they’ll pass the savings onto the customer is doubtful, but at least it will be slightly harder to justify some premium increases in the future if they are making a bigger profit.

this is great news. Completely useless to me, since I’m uninsurable and living in a state that won’t give me Medicaid until after I’m knocked up, but it’s great for many other women

Ross Lincoln @ Comment #17:

I’m not quite as pessimistic about next November as you are, but I do agree that it’s foolish to assume that whatever happens today won’t wind up being scrapped if Obama winds up being a one-term president. I still maintain some degree of hope that the election is not yet lost, but I think it’s woefully naive to assume that Obama has a lock on anything next year. If the GOP nominates Mitt Romney (which I believe they ultimately will, despite his Mormonism) and we’re still stuck in the same spot with these awful unemployment numbers, I am almost certain that Obama will lose the election. Romney’s public image keeps him just far enough away from the Bachmann/Santorum faction of his party to convince fickle mushy middle voters that he’s a safe option if the economy is still stuck in the toilet when we head to the polls.

Isn’t that dumb, jadehawk?  The system is beyond broken when people have to get pregnant in order to access healthcare.

Remember this: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts under a Democratic president.

If you don’t think that’s going to show up in ads before the election, you are criminally innocent.

As well as the unemployment figures.

This is great!  I finally got good insurance this year so my IUD (Paraguard) was the price of a office visit + prescription co-pay, $50 in total, but I would have got one ages ago if it was free.  And it lasts for 10 years!

@DTGslu2k - FWIW, I just checked RealClearPolitics, and Obama has Romney by 4.3.  Everyone else, he’s crushing.  And this with the unemployment numbers where they are, Romney taking potshots, and Obama hasn’t even started campaigning yet.  Not suggesting he has a lock on anything, but there’s room for hope, if not optimism.

Remember this: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts under a Democratic president.

Only Nixon can go to China.

If you don’t think that’s going to show up in ads before the election, you are criminally innocent.

The forthcoming shite writes itself:

(unflattering picture of Obama; music by Yamaha Sinister Chord Generator)

(dire announcer’s voice)  “The Kenyan Usurper cut Social Security AND Medicare…”

(pictures of sad-faced eldery white people)

“...so he could give money to anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright…”

(unflattering picture of Wright)

“...and the violent thugs of the New Black Panther Party. “

(pictures of 60’s riots in Detroit)

“The Obama Administration is hurting Real Americans.  This November, tell them you won’t take it anymore…”

The problem with Romney is this: the more people see him, the less they like him. He was leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire last time—until the actual, real heart of the campaign season started. Then Huckabee and McCain surged past him.

BTW, here’s a thought: when’s the last time an incumbent President who didn’t face a serious primary challenge lost reelection?

“hope and optimism” for what, precisely? economically speaking, all the Democrats have been able to do is slow down the apparently inevitable descent into Third World status :-(

I’m absolutely getting out of this country as soon as I finish my degree

Oh Jesus Christ, between the histrionics here and just about every other political blog, I think it’s time for a sabbatical.

Although I think “free”* birth control is 100% a good idea, I am not sure how it fits into health care, because health care is meant to restore you back to normal operating condition when something breaks down. And birth control is meant to disable something that works perfectly normally. Of course, many women’s health would be harmed if they got pregnant, but this would not be a factor in determining who gets the benefit.  Just a quibble about language, please do not get out the torches ad pitchforks.

*Scare quotes added to pacify nitpickers.

Will there be another post on President Pushover, by the way? This policy of letting the minority dictate policy has got to stop. Obama’s negotiating tactic of saying, “You can have everything you ever dreamt of, but absolutely nothing that’s beyond your wildest dreams: that’s where I draw the line,” is making me insane. Would Gramps McCain really have been that bad for America? Would the TPers have sprung up if Old John were in the White House?

when’s the last time an incumbent President who didn’t face a serious primary challenge lost reelection?

Pat Buchanan’s run in ‘92 never looked all that serious to me.  Other than that, yes, it’s been a while.  (Was Hoover seriously primaried?)

Really, Hector? Really? Concern troll is so very concerned?

“health care is meant to restore you back to normal operating condition when something breaks down.”

That’s why nobody covers vaccines.  Oh, wait.

Pat Buchanan’s run in ‘92 never looked all that serious to me.

Buchanan made a strong showing in New Hampshire and got a prime time speaking slot at the convention.

I checked, and Hoover was unopposed in 1932. You have to go back all the way to Grover Cleveland (!) to find an incumbent President who didn’t have a challenge from his own party but lost the general election.

That is a great image to have picked for this topic, for me.  I have a Mirena IUD and I am so gleefully happy with it that every time I open the page I get this swilling of affection in my heart (I’m a HUGE dork, I know!).  I have moderately decent insurance and I paid $177 for my IUD, which I can afford, but I know plenty of people can’t.  This news makes me very happy that more people will have an honest choice of the birth control that is best for them, and won’t have to just go with the only thing they can afford and deal with the resulting unpleasant side effects, imperfect use and higher failure rates.

Hector, I’ve been hearing more people voice the statement that “birth control isn’t health care because it interferes with normal operations.”  I think it’s a pretty fucking stupid argument so I usually respond by laughing at people in the face.  Given that it’s getting to be more common to hear it, however, I’m going to flex my reasoning skills and see if I can come up with a better response. 

Is it convincing to say that health care is meant to keep a person healthy, not restore them to health?  After all, basic medical care like pap smears, colonoscopies, yearly check-ups, etc are things that perfectly health people receive because they need to be sure that there isn’t something going on that can develop into a problem.  When a woman presents to her doctor with perfect health, that means she probably can get pregnant.  Since getting pregnant causes a catastrophe of other health problems for women, it’s best to prevent that condition from developing.  After all, when women present with a infection, doctors frequently prescribe Diflucan along with the antibiotics.  Even though her vagina has nothing wrong with it, the doctor has prior knowledge that antiobiotics and vaginas are natural enemies and should prevent the yeasties before they even show up.

Another response might be that it’s more normal to not be pregnant, and birth control continues that level of normalcy.  http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C

At the end of the day, I think the “birth control isn’t health care” argument is just an extension of “unnatural things are always bad [except for vaccines, surgery, anesthesia, Viagra, Rogaine, etc].”

““birth control isn’t health care because it interferes with normal operations.”

in other words: silly women, you’re SUPPOSED to get pregnant. sorry, i see your disclaimer and i don’t know how you think that won’t come across as conservative trolling.

Hector, I think you’re being a little lax in allowing even restoration to health to be part of health care.  Antibiotics interfere with normal operations too, you know.  People with severe infections normally die of sepsis.  Really, doctors should just stare at people until they die.  It’s natural!

Well, golly, no statins, no blood pressure drugs, certainly no smoking cessation. Glad we simplified that…

...health care is meant to restore you back to normal operating condition when something breaks down. And birth control is meant to disable something that works perfectly normally.

Health care is meant to prevent the break down in the first place, and if that doesn’t work out/isn’t possible, to fix the break down. Birth control is (and it’s covered under) *preventive* care. It’s meant to prevent the onset of pregnancy, a state of multi-system insult.

when’s the last time an incumbent President who didn’t face a serious primary challenge lost reelection?

Pat Buchanan’s run in ‘92 never looked all that serious to me.  Other than that, yes, it’s been a while.  (Was Hoover seriously primaried?)

I wouldn’t so easily dismiss the impact of Buchanan’s 1992 primary challenge. Sure, he never really had a great shot at beating Bush41 for the nomination, but he did win almost 1/4 of the total popular vote in the GOP primaries, and the party was concerned enough about rallying the base that they gave Buchanan the microphone for his infamous opening night “culture war” speech of the 1992 Republican Convention in Houston. The great Molly Ivins dryly quipped that the speech “probably sounded better in the original German.”

In any case, if you look back at every presidential election going back to FDR, two things were very consistent: every incumbent president who faced real primary challenges from nationally-recognized opponents wound up not getting re-elected (Johnson, Ford, Carter, Bush), and every president who did not face such challenges wound up getting re-elected. In truth, every president gets some primary opposition in their re-election bid, but you don’t generally hear about it because it usually involves random would-be politicians that have neither the funding nor the institutional support to even have their name mentioned on the 5pm news, much less actually pose a real threat in an election.

I am not sure that the no primary challenge => incumbent victory is the whole story: I think the causal chain probably goes base dissatisfaction => primary challenge => incumbent defeat and if no primary challenger is take seriously it is probably due to the popularity of the president.

I feel really beaten down by this agreement. Economy destroying budget cuts are now a given, your vote is only a matter of whether the poorest people will bare all the pain or simply most of the pain and there is no more chance of government funding flexibility for new programs like financial reform, new training or some sort of help for the ever-growing population of long-term unemployed.

the previous is missing an “etc” at the end

In any case, if you look back at every presidential election going back to FDR, two things were very consistent: every incumbent president who faced real primary challenges from nationally-recognized opponents wound up not getting re-elected (Johnson, Ford, Carter, Bush), and every president who did not face such challenges wound up getting re-elected. In truth, every president gets some primary opposition in their re-election bid, but you don’t generally hear about it because it usually involves random would-be politicians that have neither the funding nor the institutional support to even have their name mentioned on the 5pm news, much less actually pose a real threat in an election.

This last bit—the fact that every President receives some token primary challenge—is key. We should be careful to draw the causal arrow in the right direction when it comes to the more important observation: Incumbent Presidents are not defeated because they receive serious primary challenges. Rather, they receive seriously primary challenges because their presidencies are, in one way or another, already failing.

Birth control is (and it’s covered under) *preventive* care. It’s meant to prevent the onset of pregnancy, a state of multi-system insult.

Thank you. And I appreciate the lightness of the other’s jabs.

I found this useful website about what will be consider “preventive medicine” under the Affordable Health Care Act:  http://www.healthcare.gov/law/about/provisions/services/lists.html

There’s an awful lot of ‘the sky is falling’ here.

I’m thrilled by the announcement. This is exactly the kind of policy change that’s Obama’s one great plus; he’s actually paying attention to repairing the federal system in many areas.

Happy about this piece of news and the new fuel efficiency standards, sad about the bigger picture.

Incumbent Presidents are not defeated because they receive serious primary challenges. Rather, they receive seriously primary challenges because their presidencies are, in one way or another, already failing.

I think it’s a both/and situation. I have no doubt that if George W. Bush had faced a serious primary challenge by a fellow Republican in 2004, Kerry would have defeated him easily in the general election. Ohio would have been moot, because the election would not have been close enough for Karl Rove to steal if Bush had to overcome internal party opposition to get re-nominated.

Yes, the presidents who faced serious primary challenges were already on shaky ground with getting re-elected anyway, but I think the lack of faith in the incumbent demonstrated by a serious primary challenge nudges mushy middle voters toward the non-incumbent party. Despite the popularity of the narrative “throw the bums out”, Americans tend to prefer giving incumbent presidents a second term rather than ousting them, even when their first term was unimpressive. In any generic presidential election, the odds are always tilted towards the incumbent president getting re-elected. Where presidents get in trouble is when they lose the full support of their own base, which I think has the impact of nudging the 20% in the middle who actually determine the outcome towards the challenger. The thinking among this group is, “If this president’s own party isn’t even sure about giving him/her a second term, why should I?” Putting aside possible vote shenanigans in Ohio, the only thing that got Bush re-elected in 2004 is the fact that his base was still solidly loyal to him.

I’d like to know how Hector @ 50 is going to get 41 Republican Senators to stop filibustering and 220 Republican House members to stop stamping their feet so that the ‘majority’ can rule, since he believe Obama can do these things.

I have no doubt that if George W. Bush had faced a serious primary challenge by a fellow Republican in 2004, Kerry would have defeated him easily in the general election.

But the point is that there is simply no way he would have received such a challenge because his party was united behind him.

As far as I can tell,  serious primary challengers only emerge when a President has already lost the support of a big chunk of his party. 

And, as you say further down in your comment, losing the support of a big chunk of one’s own party can have a kind of snowball effect politically.

But Pat Buchanan in ‘92, Eugene McCarthy in ‘68, Reagan in ‘72, and Kennedy in ‘76 didn’t create the intraparty dissension. Rather, their entering the race reflected dissension that already existed. If you look at presidential job approval ratings prior to the start of these primary challenges, you’ll see presidents who were already losing key support within their party.

(Erp…that’s Reagan in ‘76 and Kennedy in ‘80, obviously!)

Remember this: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts under a Democratic president.

When did that happen? My understanding is that the big three were not touched in the deal that just passed.

I admit of course, that Obama admitted his willingness to cut those things, but that’s not the same as it actually happening.

Whether you need.Gets into our website for a minute that uses you.
www.fortruereligionjeans.com
We are international trade. We offer grade a quality product only. Our products are authentic quality with original box .No matter what reason it is. buy from us will have much more confidence ! So, please don’t hesitate, just contact us for details! We will be your reliable business partner!
Hope you guys will enjoy by online shopping without much disturbances

Thank you for sharing .Your thoughts are creative and they actually do help to me. It provides me with a lot of information. It is a nice post! I like it very much, Thanks again.