[trailhkr1]

I don’t care if it costs $9 a month or $250 a month (like some of my medication). If it’s not a drug she desperately needs in order to stay alive, please don’t ask me and other taxpayers to subsidize it.

20% of women are on BC for medical issues and some BC is very expensive. I think BC should be covered for those issues.

[chaosagent]

I remember reading somewhere that if you’re BC was for medical reasons, it was covered under Georgetown Law’s student policy.

[AAABEST]

I think BC should be covered for those issues.

This is the PRCISE point where we all get screwed. Everyone - lawmakers and citizens alike - come up with these bright ideas (by the thousands) on what "should" be done with everyone else's money.

How about this:

Don't involve me an others in your grand plans. I really don't give a flying **** how you think my families money should be spent.

Are you people God? You simply deem in your little minds what "should" be done, then use the law to pillage the resources of others in order to do it.

If you think people "should" have one thing or another, then you and other people like you can chip in and get it for them. Quit molesting others with your bright ideas.

[ottbmare]

20% of women are on BC for medical issues and some BC is very expensive. I think BC should be covered for those issues.

I'm not sure where you get those statistics. I used to do medical research for a living and I can't recall seeing that number in our data. Can you cite a source?

Also, what do you mean when you say birth control "should be covered"? Do you mean that taxpayers should "cover" birth control by providing it free for patients who can demonstrate a medical need, or do you mean that patients should have the right to buy a private health-insurance policy that will subsidized the cost of hormone medications?