thanks for reminding me!

Also,

I'm sick and tired of people using religion as a cover for being assholes. What's really behind this? I'm tempted to say it's just to force women to have kids, take care of them, and not work (thus making them dependent), but I wonder whether there isn't more to it.

undermine the entire ACA (of course). Sorry I didn't bookmark it or I'd post a link.
Was in one of the articles mentioning the comments of the women of SCOTUS on this case.

womans sexuality. no more or less.

men are allowed sex

women are not allowed sex unless decreed ok, then she is not to enjoy, just procreate.

1) I don't want to go to a party I'm not invited to.

2) I want a partner, not a play-thing.

I don't get these men, nor the women who put up with/support them.

I'm so glad I have three younger sisters, and got to see some of the world though their lives.

Maybe you're looking in the wrong place.

But not for the reasons they would think...

Or better yet, just stay the fuck out of my bedroom!

but I asked this question before and never got an answer. Can someone tell me what medical insurance companies pay for Viagra. I have a good plan and they don't. I can only go by my experience until someone fills me in differently.

All that said, people like Hobby Lobby can either shut the fuck up and abide by the law, or live up to their convictions and close their doors. We have enough Chinese (i am sure the irony is over their heads) made crap in this country already.

My employer will also not be fighting the contraception mandate and is in favor of it actually. I am lucky enough to work for a non-profit healthcare organization that actually does care about women's health as well as men's.

at least they are consistent. Insurance companies shouldn't be making "morality" judgements. The same goes for pharmacists. If a doctor writes the 'script, it should be covered and filled. We have too many people trying to play god these days.

is the assholes can turn around and say "my insurance doesn't cover Viagra, why should it cover birth control". We shouldn't open that door. We should keep pressing that this is a medical choice between a woman and her doctor. The attacks in this by assholes like Hobby Lobby are not about protecting their religion, they are about dragging women back to th 18th century.

Senator Boxer must have meant vasectomy not Viagra.

Though I believe it has been proven that Viagra can help women's sex lives too.

Generally, a vasectomy is covered. I would like to see if the Hobby Lobby insurance plan covers this procedure.

Give 'em hell!

"ED is an actual body dysfunction". So is pregnancy. When you run the risk of having to carry a baby for 9 months, completely alter your entire life and have the inability to do certain activities because you are pregnant, get back to me and explain why inability to get it up is critical to your well-being.

If you can't get it up, that is probably God's way of saying "you are too damn lame to be contributing DNA to the population." Why isn't that a valid argument? Some people seem to drag the God argument out at the drop of a hat, so why are men so anxious to go against what is obviously his will?

****

I don't have even the slightest difficulty with making that argument.

Some working behind pharmacy counters have actually objected to dispensing birth control pills to

unmarried women, but I've heard of NO corresponding "concerns" regarding unmarried men and Viagra

or condoms. Amazing, isn't it?

Yeah, that's what they want it for.

Unbelievable.

those unmarried men might be indulging in that there homosexual behavior!!

Perhaps dying of pneumonia is G-d's will, so Repugs should not take antibiotics. Ha. That would work as well.

On a more serious note, I do see a difference in that the anti-choice people believe a fetus is a child and (in their eyes), someone gets killed with an abortion, while Viagra doesn't cause what-they-see-as-death (well, it might kill me, but I was born in 1929).

I strongly agree with anti-choice people, in that I don't believe a fetus is a child.

I think that is where the argument needs to be: educating anti-choice people (or neutral people) that a fetus is not a human. They've done a good job selling this line.

for those having that problem.
Pregnancy, or lack there of, can also be a "body dysfunction".
If it is within our ability to resolve any such problem, at least for reasons of insurance, it should be dealt with equatable.

Put another way.
What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander.

Insurance is a pool into which we all pay to have our needs met. One person's need shouldn't supercede another person's need.

Indeed, my friend, indeed. Hey, how did that Linux/XP build finally turn out? I hope it went great.

Not to hijack a thread but...........
Once I have the where with all to ask an intelligent question, I'll send a note.
Why do people think that what goes on inside of Windoze, registrar et all, is mysterious?
At least by current understanding.

I wouldn't know. I've never feared it LOL. Hell half the things you need to do to customize or tailor Active Directory, MS Exchange, and even Windows Mobile take place there.

should be totally in favor of contraception.

think abortion should be illegal too.

Will be less need for abortions. It's too simple to use logic.

Contradiction is what the GOP and right wing is built on.

Props to her.

K and R

Didn't Dole advertise the most adored blue pill.

When they say of course, point out that there beloved constitution says one must be BORN in US to be a citizen. The word fetus or the word conception is not in the constitution as related to citizenship.

facilitates

And that has played into the insurance industry's hand.

The traditional view of pathology is a dysfunctional departure from normal function, and that has allowed insurance companies to require birth control and maternity coverage to cost extra and to create an expectation in many minds that things should be that way.

I agree it's an ugly issue, but that hangs more on insurers abilities to avoid pay-outs, than it does with preference for men.

Where health care funders can avoid costs they do. That's also true for pills for erectile dysfunction.

Older men have this problem more than younger men, and pharmaceuticals for erectile dysfunction aren't covered by medicare. It requires selecting a Part D supplemental that includes and covers the pill a man's MD prescribes.

Their insurance premiums will go up because it costs a lot more to cover pregnancy costs and additional dependents.

as usual

If a man can't get it up isn't that GAWD's will?

I like that, thanks guys, and yes, it a true statement.

Pharmacy was selling condoms.

No objection.

No logic.

How Corporate Socialism is destroying this Nation!

and I never get an answer that goes further than "it isn't the same thing". Seems being able to cause pregnancy is ok, but preventing pregnancy is not.....or more specifically, one affects men and one affects women.

Although I have never been able to figure out how women not being able to get contraception doesn't impact me as a guy since I don't want kids. It seems like my life would be more problematic if women couldn't get effective contraception.

Obviously, you have thought about this...as have many men who are grateful that they don't have to get a vasectomy to ensure that there will be no pregnancy. Ouch.

Happy to kick and rec

" There has been a well-documented study by a university that gave women free birth control for several years. Abortions went down by 50 percent"

for out of pocket. I would bet you Hobby Lobby's insurance co doesn't cover them either.

Feel free to publish a list of those that do, with a link to where they say so, in writing. Especially in WA state. And no, the largest one, and the one that provides state employees insurance, Uniform Medical, does not. Neither do many of the larger group plans that I checked.

Which is why the Canadian business flourishes, and perhaps why the TPP appears to be trying to cut that off.

Just fyi - called Savon, asked the pharmacist who covers them, and she said the vast majority do not, though there are some private special arrangements in which people can pay for riders, but she said they are so infrequently seen that she couldn't even come up with a name.

Otherwise it's just typical bs from another politician. And not a very good argument if people start checking on it's veracity.

That said, I think they ought to pay for birth control and ED meds, and drive the costs down for users (like insurance is ever going to do that).

Both are important for our health.

... is if a doctor prescribes it for a different medical condition, and persuades the insurance company that this is the best medication for treating this non-ED condition, usually after trying other drugs first.

But then I'm not a doctor, and I wouldn't know of any ED medication used to treat a different medical condition. But then again, some doctors are using drugs to treat a condition that it wasn't designed for. Until I get better educated, the uses for ED meds to treat a non-ED condition will remain unknown to me.

it's more fun to try for sympathy and cast yourself as the poor downtrodden victim. Most people won't call you out. They are liars as well. And pathetic that they have to be so weak.

There are likely other uses. According to the info out there, Viagra could also be used to treat high blood pressure. But the vast majority are for sexual health, the same reason birth control is prescribed to women, even though there are other uses for bc as well.

And both ought to be covered.

.......the apples-to-oranges comparison between the individual mandate in ACA and the requirement for car owners to maintain auto insurance that keeps getting thrown around.

The purpose of medical insurance as it was originally (you'll pardon the expression) conceived is to provide treatment of disease or injury. ED is a physical malfunction that Viagara and its brother drugs deal with, but do not cure, just as insulin, which does not cure diabetes, is covered because helps diabetics to maintain healthy blood sugar levels.

Likewise, contraceptives, when prescribed to treat dysmenorrhea and sometimes endometriosis, is covered by insurance because in those cases, they are treating a disease. Argue that if you want, but you would be wrong. But when prescribed for contraceptive purposes, they do not, no matter how some individuals up-thread wish to twist it. In that circumstance, some plans with more liberal coverage for "routine" services have covered them for quite some time, other plans never have.

And it's as simple as that. Buy it, don't buy it. I really don't care. Doesn't change the fact that that's the way it is.

It is what it is. I won't be back to this thread to argue it.

birth control medically covered?

Regardless of whether or not you think Viagra should be covered, I don't see where it has anything to do with covering birth control. If the argument is something male-specific vs. something female-specific, they should at least be for the same purposes. Are vasectomies covered? That's a better analogy than Viagra

As a side note, condoms are not covered, because they don't require a prescription. If they made women's birth control available without a prescription, that could be another way to eliminate the issue. I'm not sure what the other ramifications of that might be, though...

[font size=10]PENIS PUMPS![/font]

- There.

K&R

Having sex isn't considered, by most insurance companies, to be a medical necessity.

Also most men do not need Viagra.

I think a better argument is that if women are covered for birth control, why can't men buy condoms and have Obamacare cover it? That's birth control, isn't?

All too often, lawmakers, pundits and some others have been making a false, somewhat humorous and often shrill equivalency between Viagra coverage and contraception based on the idea that boner pills and The Pill serve similar purposes. They do not.
However, the lack of a moral objection to medication that people could use to engage in extramarital sex does construct an effective argument of hypocrisy and it smoothly leads into the slippery slope argument.
Good for you, Sen. Boxer.

for contraception, ie a pill for them to prevent pregnancy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You know the rest.

I believe the purpose of the birth control "controversy" is to allow the right wing to smear women as irresponsible sluts & whores who are out of control.

Misogyny is a political tool in the right (pun unavoidable) hands. Let men feel superior, favored, they'll be less likely to rebel when the sheeze really comes down & they'll keep the women under control as well.