Comments on: You’re talking about everybody’s daughters, dumba$$. History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:08:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: mandor Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:06:07 +0000 Peanut’s comment reminded me that university students used to get cheap oral contraceptives until ~5 years ago.

But colleges and universities say the drug companies have stopped offering the discounts, and are now charging the schools much more. The change has an unlikely origin: the Deficit Reduction Act signed by President Bush last year. The legislation aimed to pare $39 billion in spending on federal programs, from subsidized student loans to Medicaid. And among the changes was one that, through an arcane set of circumstances, created a disincentive for drug makers to offer school discounts.

By: Peanut Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:46:08 +0000 Pooled insurance that employees and students buy should cover the costs of being human. We grow, get hurt, reproduce (or not), age, and die. Telling women to keep our legs closed and ranting that we are sluts and prostitutes is absurd. Insurance should cover contraception AND maternity care, because reproducing (or not) is part of being human.

So, I expect health insurance companies to cover the costs of being female. Here are mine, as a a heterosexual female, during 10 years of marriage:

Years 1-3: actively avoiding pregnancy
BC pills, $35/mo (on insurance) x 12 x 3 = $1,260
3 doctor visits = $450
Total spent on BC = $1,710

Years 4 and 5: actively trying to conceive, conceiving, and delivering
2 doctor visits pre-conception = $300
Prenatal visits: $1000
C-section Delivery: $2,500-$3,000 (I paid of $12,000 billed)

Year 6: Actively avoiding
BC = condoms – not BC requiring doctor visit, not calculating cost
2 doctor visits (1 post-partum) = $300

Year 7: Leaving it up to chance, conception 2 months after return of period (18 months post-partum)
Prenatal visits: $1000
C-section Delivery: $2,500-$3,000 I paid of $12,000 billed

Year 8-10: Actively avoiding
3 doctor visits (1 post-partum) = $450
IUD = $400

Total reproductive cost (to me) of being heterosexual, married fertile female: $10,000+ over 10 years

By: Shelley Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:26:36 +0000 Morality trumps policy. This is the lesson about framing issues for public discussion that George Lakoff (most recently on Huffington Post) keeps trying to teach the Democrats.

The Republicans always frame their positions as moral. It’s time for us to do the same. Because that’s what people remember.

By: Feminist Avatar Sun, 11 Mar 2012 00:38:54 +0000 I guess a baby might also be expensive and presumably other contraceptives aren’t free either?

Seriously though, contraception of all sorts is FREE in the UK, including condoms (if you go to the clinic to get them). This is both a product of having an NHS, but also it was a demand of the women’s movement and one of their big victories.

In Australia, I pay $22 for four months for the cheapest brand (it costs more for more expensive brands but I am not sure how much more)- so $66 a year (which right now is pretty much the same price in US$). This is because pharmaceuticals are subsidised by the state.

Just one more reason to love socialised medicine…

By: Historiann Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:27:46 +0000 Wow. Thanks mandor and best_of_fair. Expense is only one of the reasons I never was interested in the Pill. $45-$50 a month would have been a significant expense for me in college & grad school, and even now there are other things I’d rather spend my dough on. (Side effects, or just the systemic effects of the Pill in general, were the other reason.) But I’ve been fortunate so far: I have never had an ongoing prescription for anything.

Too bad it didn’t come with the Swarovski crystal pack, though. The bling might have made it all worthwhile!

By: mandor Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:22:54 +0000 With a co-pay I was paying $45/mo a few years ago. Sans co-pay it was more like $60/mo for the same oc pills. I have no idea what this would cost now. Generic wasn’t an option at the time. I started off on the brand I was on because it was covered by my HMO at the time ($10 copay). Then life changed and I was somewhere else with different health insurance that didn’t cover that brand of oc pill and I didn’t feel like taking months to try out other cheaper oc pills.

By: best_of_fair Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:03:25 +0000 Well, 10 years ago I was on a pill that would have been $75/mo without insurance. My insurance at the time brought it down to $50/mo. That means I was spending $600/yr, and would have spent $900/yr if I had not had insurance. This is why, when I stopped having insurance, I stopped being on the pill until I got insurance again, this despite the fact that I needed it for a medical condition aside from the desire to avoid pregnancy.

The costs of that particular pill may have gone down because it was one where the patent had not yet expired. Could I have been on a cheaper one? In theory, yes. However, I tried 4 different brands over the course of a year or so until alighting on one whose side effects I could live with.*

At the time, that brand of pill was one of the more expensive ones, but it was also the only one that worked for me. I can easily imagine someone else in a situation where only one kind of medication works for them. With the escalation in the costs of – everything – I can easily see a pill regimen costing at least $1000/yr, with or without insurance. It’s daily, after all, and thus I agree that compared to other medicines it can be thought of as “cheap” per dose, though you see that in the aggregate it can easily add up to a substantial amount.

Koshembos, my experience with this was in Texas, which is not known to be an expensive part of the country for anything. And Historiann, no gold-plating, no crystals.

* The differences between the brands is more than just the label. My understanding is that each brand or kind of BCP has different levels of various hormones, and some have hormones that others don’t. Thus they are not easily interchangeable.

By: Historiann Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:39:22 +0000 Gold-plated pills in the bejeweled pack that’s covered in Swarovski crystals?

Hell, I don’t know. I never took the Pill. Pill-poppers: let the rest of us know what it’s costing you.

By: henry Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:28:46 +0000 Can someone please tell me what type of birth control costs $1000 / year? I understand the need for annual exams, lab work … but “the pill” is pretty darn cheap, is it not? Or are things just that more expen$ive in Washington, DC?

By: Contingent Cassandra Fri, 09 Mar 2012 15:44:43 +0000 On “pretty white girl” — in addition to the obvious (and ongoing, and sometimes complex, given women’s use of the term) issues with “girl,” “pretty” for me recalls the dismissive phrase “don’t you worry your pretty little head about it,” which is definitely a way of saying that women shouldn’t be thinking of serious matters (even/including those that directly affect their lives); they’re decorative objects. I think of it as the sort of thing a husband in an unequal marriage says to his wife about the family finances (and when she presses the issue, either because she’s justifiably worried about whether the household is on a solid footing, and/or because she suspects they’re headed toward divorce, by her choice or his, she becomes a “bitch”).

Also, although Fluke is undeniably attractive by most standards, I’d describe her self-presentation — clothing choices, hairstyle, etc. — as “professional.” That is, of course, absolutely appropriate to a 3rd-year law student, but may point to another problem that underlies both Limbaugh’s reaction and the protective impulses it has aroused: as a nation (perhaps especially as a nation increasingly populated by graying boomers who don’t want to admit they’re graying), we seem to have trouble treating people in their twenties and even thirties, especially those who haven’t yet achieved certain accepted “markers” of adulthood — completion of graduate/professional training, marriage, parenthood, mortgage-holding — as full adults (I’m cribbing this in part from a church workshop I went to yesterday on integrating the younger generation into church life; and yes, we spent some time discussing how to get alternative views of Christians and how they/we think out there, to counter the misogynistic and homophobic nonsense that too often ends up representing the “Christian” voice in the public sphere). Fluke was definitely more vulnerable to Limbaugh’s recasting of her as a co-ed, and also, perhaps, more vulnerable to the protective instincts of those a few decades older, because, unlike some of the women whose stories she cited (who may be her age, or younger, or older), she is unmarried. In the days when the term “co-ed” was in common use, many women who were “co-eds” at 22 were married mothers of 1 or 2 children by 25, and, if not quite matrons, then at least junior-leaguers, at 30. Of course, some of those women also became law students (and, eventually, lawyers and judges and, in a few cases, supreme court justices) in their twenties or thirties or forties, before or while or after marrying (and in some cases divorcing) and having and raising children. I’m not quite sure where I’m going with this, but I think there may be some of the same combination of reactions that greeted another example of (mostly)(relatively) young people seeking to have an adult voice in the public sphere, the Occupy protestors: a tendency either to criticize them as whiny, entitled adolescents (if not toddlers) or to become overprotective/overworried about their health and welfare (I can’t find the link at the moment, but I remember an exchange in some blog’s comments thread about whether it was appropriate, respectful, and/or genuinely supportive to call the student protestors pepper-sprayed in CA “kids”).

But yes, whatever the exact nature of the various. intersecting cultural currents involved, they’re clearly such that it was incredibly stupid for Limbaugh to attack Fluke as he did.