Using contraceptives? Post your online sex tape then!

They're fine to pay for the problem to be created - by viagra - but can't stand the idea of actually fixing the problem - the pill.

Also, I think that Rush Limbaugh is a bigot, but in this case I think that he is focusing on your last bullet point more than his bigoted ideas: he wants to be able to watch free porn.

The American issue is about ideology, not cost. Religious employers feel contraception is immoral and that they should be free to apply their values to their employees. It doesn't make any sense at all on an economic front, as surely if you have fertile women in your workforce you would prefer them to be able to limit and plan their potential pregnancies. One of the pernicious effect of running the healthcare system on an employer insurance basis is that it allows this sort of controlling relationship to be institutionalized. We lived in the States for a while a few years ago, and I was amazed at how much power and influence the corporate world has both towards individuals and the wider political world.

I agree BigJessie, that if you're paying for insurance that's supposed to provide medication then it seems completely wrong for them not to stump up. I suppose the insurance companies could argue that because the pill is an ongoing expense it is unreasonable for them to cover it - I suppose that depends on the premiums people pay.

*it is presumably cheaper

It isn't really about getting medication for free. The issue is that American women are paying into insurance policies, which use any kind of chicanewry they can to avoid paying out.

Viagra is funded by insurers who apparently won't fund the pill when medically rercommended. Something rotten in medical insurance there... I expect they're probably willing to pay for medical treatment after accidents horse-riding (recreational activity, surely), or similar. Probably because there would be an outcry at "insurance wouldn't treat broken leg". However, if they target women, people nod along and say "well why should they have sex for free?". Completely forgetting that they're paying for that insurance!

Incidentally, IIRC contraceptives are always free in the UK. There's a little tick-box on the prescription because of it. I imagine it's a tactical decision by the NHS: it is much cheaper to give contraceptives for free and have a high take-up, than it is to charge £7.60 to many women, and then fund terminations or antenatal care and childbirth for the others.

No I don't think someone should have to pay for the side effect of their medication, not if everyone else is getting other medication for free.

Like I said earlier, the concept of free medication is quite foreign to me anyway - in Ireland I was paying 80 euros a month for my anti-depressants, plus 60 euros every time I went to see the GP. The idea that you could get non-essential medication for free seems like a massive luxury to me. Even paying 7.60 is bloody great when you're used to paying full market value for medicine.

Here I get free perscriptions, but its perscribed for 6 months at a time so I assume those who do have to pay (ie aren't on free persciptions and aren't getting it as a free contraceptive) will pay the NHS persciption charge that often.

And the pill is often given for a dual purpose: if a woman is using it as contraceptive as well as for medical reasons should she be required to pay for it? I've used the pill like that much as I've used anti-inflamatories both to ease immediate pain and to help with recovery from soft tissue injuries.

MrsHoarder I already said a few times that I don't have any problem with it being given free for a medical condition.

How does it work here with the prescription charge? Do you get a few months in one go for one charge?

What about the medical arguement for the pill though: it is a treatment for period problems (and iirc the contraceptive effect was at first considered an undesirable side-effect). Should women who can benefit from it medically not be perscibed it as they would be any other drug?

SardineQueen - free access to contraception isn't a European thing - it's not free in Ireland. The pill costs about 15-20 euros per month there as far as I know. If you add that cost to the cost of seeing the GP periodically to renew your prescription/have a check up, the pill costs about 300 euros a year. That's a heck of a lot more than condoms. Yet, Ireland has a lower rate of teenage pregnancy than the UK. So clearly access to free contraception doesn't automatically cut the pregnancy rate.

I see what you're saying about giving women control over their fertility and it makes a lot of sense to me. I find it quite sad that the strongest argument for providing free pills is that so many women have sex with men who have little or no respect for them.

I think providing the pill free to all women is just common sense. It's cheap to administer, extremely effective if taken properly and, as pointed out above, is one of the few methods that don't require male co-operation.

It's far cheaper than maternity care or abortions. It meets the patient's needs in that most women do want to limit their fertility- very few people have children constantly from 16 to 45 anymore.

I don't think you can say sex is recreational/optional. It's a natural biological instinct, but as our lifestyles have evolved, we can't afford the consequences of all having 10 children, because chances are they will all survive to adulthood and we will have population armagedddon.

The pill IS way cheap, certainly at the price the government could/would/does get it.

The key part is what gallic just said, though - what was revolutionary about the Pill at the time it came out, and STILL is, is that it is a form of contraception that a woman can use without the co-operation of her male partner. The Pill puts women in control of their own fertility in a way that no barrier method does - even a diaphragm requires planning or that a male partner be willing to wait a moment, a condom requires male agreement, (as does the female condom, really) - but the pill puts her reproductive capabilities firmly under her own control.

It's not ideal, it's not perfect, but in that one regard it blows all other forms of contraception out of the water. And since this is the feminist board I think we should pay attention to the contraceptive choices that give women the most power to control their fertility. I know that the confident woman's answer to "my man won't use a condom" is 'don't bloody shag that bloody loser then' but we know from the relationship boards that (1) few women are confident enough to make demands to protect their sexual safety and (2) a lot of women are sleeping with absolute twonks. So why have them risk pregnancy as 'punishment' for these facts?

I don't see why the pill should be reserved for just those who can afford it. "oh, poor people you can have these condoms for free, with the MAP for those who have problems and love vomiting... Convenient contraception which is woman-driven? sorry, only for those who can find fifty quid a month. Bad luck."

Using condoms once again puts the man in the position of power because then contraception becomes his responsibility.

Cailindana - on average 2% of couples who use condoms perfectly everytime will get pregnant in a year. For more typical condom users, who drink, get carried away sometimes, take chances etc.. the pregnancy rate can be more like 15%.

I imagine avoiding the cost of miscarriage care, abortions and childbirth for these extra pregnancies (not to mention the emotional impacts) has got to outweigh the £100 or so a year it costs for a mirena or pills, or the one off cost of vasectomy. It would be a false economy to force couples into using the cheapest form of contraception. What would be the point?

Pill is way cheap isn't it? Why do you think it is more expensive?

Also for women in some situations they are not able to use condoms (that takes the co-operation of the man).

Surely choice is essential, and giving people the power to prevent unwanted pregnancy is the civilised thing to do.

Free and easily available access to decent contraception is a basic fundamental of a developed and decent society, I thought?

Isn't it in some human rights type stuff? European stuff?

I cant believe people are even debating this

Because the pill isn't any more effective than condoms, but is a lot more expensive. The pill also doesn't prevent STIs. I'm personally not a fan of the pill as I honestly can't see how changing your hormonal balance can be healthy, but that's neither here nor there.

I suppose my view on it is sex isn't an absolute right that should be upheld by the state. It makes sense for the state to provide free access to a cheap form of contraception as the benefits outweigh the costs. IMO if a person wants another, more expensive form of contraception then it's up to them to fund it themselves.

Sorry, lots of xposts.

But if you would fund condoms and map, then why not pay for the pill and other hormonal forms of contraception that are more effective?

Why should women be put in a situation that they have to make the decision on which method to use, based on which is free.

yes I would .

I can totally see the argument for free condoms - they're very cheap anyway and so wouldn't cost the government much, they're the responsibility of the man so they prevent the woman having to take hormones, and they prevent STIs which hormonal contraception does not.

I lived in Germany for many years and had to pay for contraception. We were on low wages and struggled a bit financially but it was something that we had to find the money for. Some simply cannot afford to go on the pill or use condoms.

Out of interest pinkyredrose, if free contraception was a benefit that you had to claim, would you claim it?

I already answered your questions MmeLindor. I said I would be in favour of free condoms and cheap/free MAP.

Cailindana i've just read the thread again, no you didn't actually say that, i apologise.

However i do think that free contraceptives should be the norm and I think that its not right to have to pay.

Cailin
No one is expecting the state to pay for them to have sex. You are looking at this from the wrong side of the coin.

The provision of free contraceptives saves the country more than it costs as it means less unwanted pregnancies.

Sex as a recreational activity - So of you want sex then you should pay for it. What about those who simply cannot afford contraception? Do they go without or hope that they don't get caught?

What about prevention of STDs? Any idea how much drugs to treat HIV cost? Or the cost of chlamydia for women - who risk infertility.