I was a bit shocked yesterday when The View (I'm a few days behind) informed me that Viagra is covered by health insurance because it's a medicine, while birth control isn't because it's not. I do not understand that one, but then, I haven't heard the insurance companies come out on one side or the other on the subject. I actually have always been under the impression that if you have health insurance it includes birth control, but maybe I've been wrong.
As for what I just heard from Bill O'Reilly (dated 3-12), I'm upset that his only comment against Sandra Fluke is that she can afford to dress well and travel (and hang out with Democrats) but can't afford $9 a month for birth control. What a load of crock. Does that mean I should find fault with George Clooney for speaking out against the atrocities in Sudan because he can afford to not have to live there?!?! Republicans are the first to say that you can't throw money at a problem, but haven't I heard that claim before? Why should we the government pay for foreign aid when those high paid Hollywood types could easily fund it? Is it really so foreign to people like O'Reilly that a person not in dire straits (I won't comment on whether or not she can in fact afford her own birth control since I haven't seen her budget and I'd be a little disturbed if O'Reilly has) stands up to speak for those who are.
I don't use any birth control, though my periods have gotten so painful that I may do so once I'm ready to accept that part of my body (yep, 23 years old and periods are ICKY), though I guess I should be grateful that as an unemployed woman, thankful for still being on my parents health insurance, I guess I should take advantage of co-pay free birth control pills, since as I write this, that's the main reason, besides the fact that I don't really like being dependent on pills, that I wouldn't give up my monthly pains. I can't justify budgeting in the pills when my savings are going to pay back my student loans--even if it's just $9 a month.
As for what I just heard from Bill O'Reilly (dated 3-12), I'm upset that his only comment against Sandra Fluke is that she can afford to dress well and travel (and hang out with Democrats) but can't afford $9 a month for birth control. What a load of crock. Does that mean I should find fault with George Clooney for speaking out against the atrocities in Sudan because he can afford to not have to live there?!?! Republicans are the first to say that you can't throw money at a problem, but haven't I heard that claim before? Why should we the government pay for foreign aid when those high paid Hollywood types could easily fund it? Is it really so foreign to people like O'Reilly that a person not in dire straits (I won't comment on whether or not she can in fact afford her own birth control since I haven't seen her budget and I'd be a little disturbed if O'Reilly has) stands up to speak for those who are.
I don't use any birth control, though my periods have gotten so painful that I may do so once I'm ready to accept that part of my body (yep, 23 years old and periods are ICKY), though I guess I should be grateful that as an unemployed woman, thankful for still being on my parents health insurance, I guess I should take advantage of co-pay free birth control pills, since as I write this, that's the main reason, besides the fact that I don't really like being dependent on pills, that I wouldn't give up my monthly pains. I can't justify budgeting in the pills when my savings are going to pay back my student loans--even if it's just $9 a month.
No comments:
Post a Comment