re: #153 BongCrodny

Excellent point. If a woman suffers from the problems Fluke described, it’s quite logical to believe that she may be prescribed the most expensive medication.

I suffer from bronchial asthma and I am without insurance right now. The okay stuff I use to treat the problem costs about $50 a month. The stuff that works the best costs $250 for a 10-day supply.

Don’t know why that’s such a hard concept for people to grasp.

It’s easier to fight over exactly how much it really costs than to tackle the bigger issue.

The reason Fluke is getting this much push-back is that she’s highlighting one of the really problematic things about many policies that don’t include birth control—the refusal to pay for hormonal treatments because OMG, it’s the pill.

When I was working for the Diocese of Oakland, a coworker had a problem similar to this. She won, they got beaten down by her and her doctor, but she was a. aggressive and educated and b. she could actually afford the meds until they folded.

As I’ve said before, I have my own take on this, but I have probably more sympathy for the concerns of the Church about this than many on this board. I think they’re mistaken, but I understand their reasoning.

However, the fact that women who need hormone pills for any reason whatsoever might still be denied them under these policies is a real, and potentially explosive issue.

Hence, the mad scramble to shut Fluke up, and to repeat “Sex, sex, sex all the time, sex dozens of times a day, she just wants to have sex, sex, sex…” until the memory of what she actually said becomes irrelevent.