Oh, I noticed. I was covered for birth control under my university's health plan, but last year, I was part-time, so I lost my coverage.

Last month, I paid $53 for three months of birth control, as opposed to the $45 in the Spring.

If prairielily's case is representative of a national trend, my guess is that something caused general prices to spike, and that in turn combined with the market pressures of generics caused an exec to kill subsidies to the public clinics completely.

I suspect the only recourse at this point is to push very strongly for a national health care plan that covers it or for better public clinic subsidies from the government, neither of which is going to be possible without Democrat control of congress.

Zed,

National health care is the only recourse???

or Prairielily could just work and extra hour a month at her minimum wage job to subsidize her "right" to have sex without the resposiblity of pro-creation.

(3 months X 1 hour@ $5.15 = 15.45 - taxes = approximate increase in cost in birth control for prairielily because she's not a full time student who deserves free birth control because students shouldn't have to worry about getting pregnant when they have sex.)

When I was on the pill I had to pay $35/per package. Even when it's covered there is a copay. I have tried different pills and that’s the only one that didn’t give me nausea.

As for responsibility tfreridge, I think simply taking birth controls is a responsible act, having babies when you can’t provide optimum care for them isn’t. Or do you have a problem with women having sex in general unless they want to be always pregnant? In a nation with so many unwanted pregnancies it makes a lot of sense to have a national plan that covers the pill, but it’s just not gonna happen.

Sojourner,

Taking birth control is a very responsible act.
Low income women should (and in many states, do) have a source of free birth control, because single motherhood is one of the leading causes of poverty.

What I have a problem with is people who are obviously not underprivledged complaining that the relatively small increase in birth control prices (probably driven by the increase in prescription subsidies for the underpriveledged) is a matter of "repro rights".

tfreridge:

Nobody has done that in this thread. To what are you referring?

umm... Vanessa's original post.

tfreridge:

Ah, so you don't mean complaining on their own behalf, but complaining in general.

Since those who are underprivileged don't have access to a platform from which they can voice complaints on their own, your complaint amounts to a demand that no discussion of price increases in birth control be allowed, period.

I don't find that a very useful stance. As you yourself have noted, diminished access to birth control among the poor is not only a reproductive rights issue, but a social welfare issue (and it doesn't only affect the unmarried -- there are a great many married parents below the poverty line).

Your attack on prairielily, who did nothing more than add price data, was utterly uncalled for.

And it's not a "relatively small" increase. It's as much as 1,800 times larger (from $0.01 to $18 per pack).

Did you even read the article?

I did, and I still think the huge over reaction of this is another reason why we need "national health care" is ridiculous.

Also the implied notion that this is another assault on "repro rights" is little conspiracy theory looney. Assault by whom? The money grubbing capitalistic bible toters who don't want their daughters having sex so they're making birth control more expensive? Of Course! The same people who always assault "repro rights".

Also, the assumption that the left wing bloggers speak for the underprivledged who don't have a platform is an out and out fabrication.

tfreridge:

You are the first person to imply that this is part of a conspiracy theory -- every other analysis here, either in the article, or by commenters, has examined only general economic factors.

Way to beat that straw man.

And your sudden projection to all left wing bloggers is also a spectacularly bizarre diversion. Vanessa, in this entry, linked to an article raising awareness of an issue facing underprivileged women, most of whom do not have their own high traffic blogs, or for that matter blogs at all.

If you believe that to be a fabrication, then you are sufficiently detached from the reality that I perceive that there's not much point in continuing the discussion.

Zed,

I would totally agree with you for better subsidies for clinics and negotiating for a lower sales price to the clinics if you would agree that pharmecueticals have the right to raise the price to the general public who don't rely on the clinics and give them a little by restricting the manufacture of generics and allowing the pharmecueticals to maintaint their profit margins.

After all, don't we want the same thing? Low cost birth control for low income women and families and fewer abortions?

It's called compromise and mostly it's done by a Republican controlled congress.

The article was great.

It was Vanessas implications that I disagreed with. When I read her post that was what stood out to me.

Also, I believe you were the one who (in a roundabout way) stated or assumed that a complaint could be made on behaf of the underprivledged (and that it would be made on this blog which is definately liberal to say the least).

What I don't find very useful is your assumtion that Democrats help the underprivledged. I think most of their policies hurt them in the long run.

tfreridge:

I would totally agree with you for better subsidies for clinics and negotiating for a lower sales price to the clinics if you would agree that pharmecueticals have the right to raise the price to the general public who don't rely on the clinics and give them a little by restricting the manufacture of generics and allowing the pharmecueticals to maintaint their profit margins.

Agreed in the main. It would be nice if they'd pick up some of the cost pro bono publico, but I'm quite happy to agree that they are well within their rights to raise prices. In fact, nobody here has argued otherwise -- the complaint is only that it isn't good for the public, particularly poor women.

However, the manufacture of generics is already incredibly heavily restricted -- for twenty years the pharmaceutical companies get an absolute monopoly, and no generics can be made without their consent, period. I don't see that they need more than that. If in twenty years you can't come up with something else, you don't deserve any further subsidy, and the free market gets to decide who's the most efficient manufacturer.

Keep in mind, patents only protect profits for those twenty years because the patented item is released to the public after that time. If you want to go for trade secret status instead of a patent, then there is no time limit: you can be a monopoly until someone else invents it independently. Pharmaceutical companies are free to take that route if they think that what they have is that valuable and hard to discover.

It was Vanessas implications that I disagreed with. When I read her post that was what stood out to me.

I'm afraid you'll need to be a little more specific about what statement is implying what. I see nothing relevant in her brief introduction implying any of the things that you've attacked so far.

Also, I believe you were the one who (in a roundabout way) stated or assumed that a complaint could be made on behaf of the underprivledged (and that it would be made on this blog which is definately liberal to say the least).

I have point-blank stated twice that the context to this entire discussion is the effect on the underprivileged, and that thus the posting is in fact effectively on behalf of the underprivileged (and that if we cannot agree on this, then we don't share enough contact points on the same plane of reality to continue). Your statement ("the assumption that the left wing bloggers speak for the underprivledged"), making its reference in the plural, can refer only to two things: either "left wing bloggers" in the aggregate (in which case it's completely irrelevant, as Jessica is not a divine body encompassing all left wing bloggers), or every single left wing blogger, in which case it's demonstrably false, as Vanessa (whom I will agree can accurately be called a left wing blogger) has just done so in this post.

It's called compromise and mostly it's done by a Republican controlled congress. [...] What I don't find very useful is your assumtion that Democrats help the underprivledged. I think most of their policies hurt them in the long run.

Obviously, I disagree strongly on both points, though at least it's possible for two reasonable people to do so sanely on this topic. (Though I have to ask: Republican-controlled congress? Compromise? What the hell are you thinking of? They've raised railroading to an extreme art form. Just this week the Republican-controlled congress has allowed a secret hold on a bipartisan measure to increase accountability ... but I'm drifting badly off topic.)

Still, I am absolutely intrigued to discover what compromise you have in mind that doesn't entail either national health care or public clinic subsidies, which results in underprivileged women still having access to birth control and doesn't amount to a demand that poor women be punished for having sex. (Losing either of those two points doesn't entail compromise -- that's called "giving away the entire ball of wax".)

What I don't find very useful is your assumtion that Democrats help the underprivledged. I think most of their policies hurt them in the long run.

Democrats != liberals. Democrats are the party of welfare reform, slightly better health care coverage, welfare for the middle class in the form of social security, and the War on Drugs. Liberals generally support single-payer health care, higher social benefits for the poor, a higher minimum wage, and stricter corporate regulations.

I would totally agree with you for better subsidies for clinics and negotiating for a lower sales price to the clinics if you would agree that pharmecueticals have the right to raise the price to the general public who don't rely on the clinics and give them a little by restricting the manufacture of generics and allowing the pharmecueticals to maintaint their profit margins.

Why should big pharma corporations get to do that? Governmentally-supported patents already give them insanely high profit margins, even though they spend much more money on advertising than on R&D (in more enlightened countries than the US, direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs is heavily regulated).

tferidge,

I never said that anyone should pay for my birth control because I'm thankfully not underprivileged, nor did I complain. When I looked at my bill, I thought, "Hmm. It went up. That has to really suck for women who had a hard time affording it already."

Oh, and not everyone is on birth control because they're having sex. That's not why my doctor put me on it originally. That's not why a lot of women are on/have been on it. I have a friend with endometriosis, for instance.

Thanks for sticking up for me, Zed. I didn't post an off-hand observation so I could be treated like a spoiled brat.

And by the way, my university charges full-time students for extended health coverage, including prescription drug benefits. It wasn't free in the first place.