Cruz wants to join AOC to legalize over-the-counter birth control

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Jun 13, 2019.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
  2. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #2
  3. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
  4. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #4
    Haha planned parenthood opposes legalizing otc birth control because....wait for it...turn women would have to pay for it out of pocket. Haha
     
  5. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #5
    is that supposed to be then?
     
  6. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    source please.........
     
  7. benshive macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2017
    Location:
    United States
    #7
    I won't believe Cruz and AOC are "working together" until I see something passed that actually achieves something and doesn't have a bunch of extra clauses that one tries to sneak by the other. I'm not holding my breath.
     
  8. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #8
    I agree and it already looks like PP is throwing a tantrum...

    From the article:

    Planned Parenthood has opposed such legislation, saying on its website that it would “force women to go back to the days when they paid out of pocket for birth control — which can cost upwards of $600 a year.”
     
  9. missbing macrumors 6502

    missbing

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    #9
    If something is over the counter does that mean it won't/can't be covered by insurance? That's the only reason I could think of PP opposing this (not saying I agree with them). If that's the case, can't there be a mandate that it can still be covered by insurance?
     
  10. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #10
    Idiots. OTC would make the drug cheaper and more accessible, it certainly wouldn't cost $600 a year prob less than half of that. There's zero medical reason for it to require a prescription anyway.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 13, 2019 ---
    I think insurance companies can get away with not covering OTC drugs because they're technically not medically necessary.

    I'm actually not surprised by this. Everyone supports easier access to birth control. Conservatives are just saying you pay for it, which is certainly not an unreasonable position.
     
  11. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #11
    The hell with PP. Got to get this past the FDA first.
     
  12. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #12
    What I find odd about PP opposition is that I thought it was her body and her choice?

    A woman can’t choose if she wants a prescription or if she wants to pay out of her own pocket?

    Odd eh?
     
  13. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #13
    what do shopping choices have to do with ownership of one's body?
     
  14. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #14
    You'd have to ask PP that as I have no clue why they'd care if a woman gets birth control pills as OTC or prescription that she then puts in her body...

    Her body and her choice? Apparently not according to PP.......

    I am all for easy access to birth control measures and even plan B.... PP is obviously not so why is the question.....
     
  15. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #15
    Yes, even with a prescription. My daughter has had a script for Sudafed (the real stuff) for years. Insurance won't cover it even though in my state it is considered a Schedule II drug and not available OTC.
     
  16. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #16
    They have that position because they make so much money on the abortion. Just look at the test results with their condoms. Last time I looked, they were one of the few with an unacceptable fail rate. hmmmm.
     
  17. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #17
    I am ok with this. Legal and up to the individual. This should settle the debate. Ideal for liberals? No. Ideal for Conservatives? No. They say they best compromise is when neither side is happy.
     
  18. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #18
    So TC joins AOC in support of OTC :p
    TC + AOC = AOTC. Allied on OTC
     
  19. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #19
    As a healthcare provider naturally I have some safety concerns about this, though generally I think this is a good thing.

    I’d prefer to that birth control be sold with a “standing prescription” or less ideally “OTC control” rather than “OTC”, meaning it must be sold behind the counter but without a prescription. That way a buyer must be consulted before purchasing.

    The real question though is how OTC coverage affects insurance coverage. If it’s OTC/OTC control insurance doesn’t have to cover it and therefore the cost could be much higher to women. If there is a standing order (much like flu shots or Narcan), the medication remains a prescription status, therefore eligible for insurance coverage, BUT woman can walk into any pharmacy and get it without a prescription.

    Again, there are some significant safety issues in choosing a birth control product and counseling points (ie missed dose protocol) that are mandatory to ensure proper protection.

    Looking at this as from a retail pharmacy perspective, if pharmacists are taking the time to help patients pick products and counsel there should adequate reimbursement built in for their clinical services.
     
  20. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #20
    Are you sure it’s Schedule II (I assume you’re in the US)? As far as I know the most stringent state scheduling is III in Oregon and Mississippi. Last I knew there’ a handful of states that have marked it schedule V, however in all but one require a prescription for it (in some states pharmacists can dispense schedule V meds without an Rx).

    I think the whole pseudoephedrine purchase restrictions are a mess- not surprising as it was rolled out quickly and with 50 different states all at different stages of implementing state computer systems. About two thirds of states and most major retail chains participate in a universal tracking system that monitors sales between pharmacies and across state lines. If everyone got on the same page it would prevent having to schedule it and make things easier for the consumer.

    But I won’t hold my breath. It’s 2019 and we still don’t have full PDMP (prescription drug monitor program) integration between states. These are the systems that track scheduled drug prescribing and purchases in order to identify doctor shopping, Rx fraud, and sketchy prescribers. Something like 12 states don’t even have operational programs. Here in Massachusetts I can only see I believe 21 other states. And while the system is better than even a year ago, there’s still synchronization problems causing information not to appear for days or in some cases weeks. To be fair though pharmacy management software (the programs retail pharmacies use) are generally archaic, patched together to continue working, and just horribly executed. They have to integrate with state databases, federal databases, insurance, wholesalers, other pharmacies, etc so it’s a mess.
     
  21. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #21
    No, not positive. Just relaying what my pharmacist told me. Maybe it was because of a bill about 5 years ago that was going to require a prescription for it, even combination products like Zyrtek-D.

    And all that tracking is useless if the major chains won't carry it. We have resorted to crossing the border into OH and buying it there. I guess that makes me a drug mule, He-haw, He-haw.
     
  22. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #22
    Once it's available without a Rx, there's no reason to get a Rx, so insurance will not cover it. Period.

    If a woman doesn't have insurance, there's no choice.

    There's also the issue that that bc it's still dangerous. There are side effects that need monitoring, and how does a girl/woman know which kind is right for her?
     
  23. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #23
    With the availability of implants I wonder why pills are still the basic Rx goto.
    With the continued growth of home delivery, I can see low-dose BC becoming OTC.
     

Share This Page

22 June 13, 2019