Jack Cafferty: Viagra Is For A Medical Condition, Birth Control Is A "Lifestyle Choice"
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
In discussion of McCain's painful fumbling over why health insurance covers Viagra but not birth control, The Situation Room panel of Wolf Blitzer, Gloria Borger, Stephen Hayes and Jack Cafferty debate the position between a rock and a hard place that McCain finds himself, eager to win over those feminist Clinton supporters but hesitant to speak out against that mainstay of the Republican platform: restricting women's reproductive freedom.
Ignoring for the moment that CNN cannot bother to have a single pundit on for "balance" from the left against The Weekly Standard's Hayes and US News' Gloria Borger, it's Jack Cafferty who issues the befuddling "answer" to McCain's predictament:
CAFFERTY: Well, you know, the answer is Viagra is used to treat a medical condition, erectile dysfunction. Birth control is a lifestyle choice. And that's why insurance companies don't reimburse for it unless pregnancy represents a danger for the woman. And then there's a gray area where you can do a negotiation.
Excuse me? I know that most men don't have a huge well of knowledge on the workings of a woman's body (any more than I completely understand all of your equipment), but I think that in absence of knowledge, it might be smarter to avoid definite declarations like that. Oral contraceptives are absolutely used to treat medical conditions:
Although they are most commonly prescribed to prevent pregnancy, birth control pills are also used to treat a variety of menstrual disorders including amenorrhea (absence of menstruation), dysmenorrhea (abnormally painful menstruation) and hypermenorrhea (abnormally Menstruation is the periodic shedding of the lining of the uterus, causing bloody vaginal discharge.heavy menstrual bleeding). They may also be prescribed to treat a number of other conditions, including polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), hirsutism (abnormal hair growth) and endometriosis. In addition, birth control pills may be taken to regulate irregular menstrual cycles and to help in the transitional period prior to menopause.
In addition to preventing pregnancy and treating various medical conditions, birth control pills also offer women a number of significant health benefits, including a decreased risk of colorectal, ovarian and endometrial cancers.
And since when is the life of a woman to be considered a "gray area" for negotiation? But there's no gray area about a man's desire to get it up, nor any consideration to the consequences of what happens when he can? Jack, you disappoint me.
Transcripts below the fold:
BLITZER: Planned Parenthood is seizing on a stumble by John McCain when he was asked about insurance coverage for birth control and Viagra.
Let's talk about that with once again, our senior political analyst, Gloria Borger, Jack Cafferty and Stephen Hayes of "The Weekly Standard".
Here's the ad that Planned Parenthood is now running, guys.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, PLANNED PARENTHOOD AD)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ever use birth control?
Then you'll want to hear this.
QUESTION: It's unfair. Health insurance companies cover Viagra, but not birth control.
Do you have an opinion on that?
MCCAIN: I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Planned Parenthood Action Fund is responsible for the content of this ad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right, so, Gloria, let me start with you.
What do you think? Is this going to be an effective ad, because Planned Parenthood is running it in several of these so-called swing states?
BORGER: I think what was clearly on John McCain's mind is that he didn't want to talk about Viagra and that's why you saw him in such agony during this. But, you know, McCain is trying to get those women voters that say that they're alienated from Obama, they were supporting Hillary Clinton. And, you know, this is not the way for him to get young women voters. He may have a lot of the Viagra voters, but he needs those young women if he's going to try and win the election (INAUDIBLE).
BLITZER: Steve, what do you think?
HAYES: Well, you know, you could see McCain just struggling to come up with any kind of an answer.
(LAUGHTER)
HAYES: I think he was probably thinking, jeez, on the one hand, I really need women voters. I don't want to say anything that will offend them. On the other hand, I'm essentially a conservative. I might make the point that maybe the federal government shouldn't be in the business of funding, you know, things for erectile dysfunction or birth control.
BORGER: Or -- right.
BLITZER: Jack?
CAFFERTY: Well, you know, the answer is Viagra is used to treat a medical condition, erectile dysfunction. Birth control is a lifestyle choice. And that's why insurance companies don't reimburse for it unless pregnancy represents a danger for the woman. And then there's a gray area where you can do a negotiation.
But this is not going to help John McCain. It brings to mind his opposition to freedom of choice. He's a pro-life guy. You take a look at the Justices on the Supreme Court, you put McCain in office, you replay this ad from Planned Parenthood, you can figure out what kind of justices are going to be appointed if he's the next president.
BORGER: And, by the way, this whole thing was started by one of McCain's surrogates, Carly Fiorina, who pointed out this imbalance between insurance companies paying for Viagra and not paying for birth control. So I'm sure John McCain was kind of scratching his head.
BLITZER: All right. Let's have a -- let's have a laugh.
Isn't the risk of unwanted pregnancy a medical condition? I would say it's as much or more so than old geezers like McCain and Cafferty wanting to get it on (as unpleasant as that thought may be). Old geezer's health is not at risk from not being able to get it up (although it may indicate a more serious problem) but a woman's health is definitely at risk if she becomes pregnant.
WHAT! Oh, no, no, no.... You've really let me down Jack. If you're allowed to get it up by taking a pill, what's it going to do in the wrong hands? Can you say, "RAPE?" Nope, birth control is a need, especially these days, when it's hard enough for people. Don't make it worse. It should be supported, and people should not be afraid of this. We've never quite evolved on this issue, huh?
I saw an ad for a penis pump last night...on TV that is covered by Medicare.
....great
What if the Viagra is used by middle-aged gays to help sprout a boner?
"Disappointed"?
What. A. Dope. this guy is.
Which makes him perfect for CNN.
Forget the gays, what about Viagra for no longer fertile couples who want to sprout a boner?
Many republicans have to use Viagra to become sexually aroused with a woman. This is according to The Discovery Channel.
listen cafferty knows what he's talking about.
1. he's dysfunctional
2. he's a dick
Ay yi yi.
Cafferty has been tough on Bush and the war but he remains an old fashioned right winger basically, and if not, sure booted this one.
So Viagra is a medical condition because men MUST be able to have sex if they want to, and contraception not so much because women don't have that same right?
Right.
Yeah, gotta let us men express our power and sexuality, otherwise, I mean, we might get embarrased! Which is definitely a medical condition. Women needing to stay un-pregnant and function and yet still also function sexually, eh, not so important.
I'm preaching to the choir here I realize, I think I'll send this to Cafferty instead.
These people need to be banished from the human race. The need to not be allowed to vote, eat, drink, bathe, or interact with the rest of humanity. Isolated confinement until the end of time would be appropriate.
Good Lard.
This is pretty bad esp. when you add in the fact that for generations pregnancy was/is treated like a mere medical condition.
Men!
Wasn't Jack being sarcastic? I mean, he usually is on CNN, so I took him as being sarcastic, as in:
Well OF COURSE Viagra is covered, it's a legitimate medical condition, but wanting to take a pill to negate the chance of pregnancy, well, that's just a personal choice, more of an elective sort of thing.
I am of the belief he was being tongue in cheek when he said those words. I haven't watched the video yet, but that is my first impression knowing Jack.
After I watch the video, I'll see if I still stand by that assessment.
Viagra is a recreational drug.
Orangutan. @ 7:
Usually it is wioth other men.
ysbaddaden @ 4:
Then it's a "lifestyle choice," duh.
Unless I am mistaken, when birth control is prescribed for something other than contraception, it often IS paid for by insurance companies. I believe this was the case of a few friends of mine who had to go on it once they began taking Accutaine, which causes severe birth defects.
McCain's fumbling will be just one more long lasting boner. There's the Viagara analogy.
Cafferty's comment will be a perpetual cock blocker keeping him from getting any. Thus the birth control connection.
You people really think every women should have birth control covered by their insurance plan, or in a more perfect world, covered under a universal health care plan? That is, covered as birth control, not covered as treatment for an illness (of course anything and everything should be covered if its used to treat an illness)
You really think erectile dysfunction isn't a illness that shouldn't be covered?
Birth control is a treatment for the side effects that are caused by old men who CHOOSE to take Viagara.
Get off the Viagara, Jack.
people are way too hard on other people here. but of course, all those who anonousmly blog do so because they live the perfect life, never once doing no wrong.
nobody bats 1000.
it's humanity. don't forget that you cylons!
QuakerDave @ 5:
Sometimes he makes sense, but basically he's just a cranky old fart that CNN rescued from The Island of Misfit Anchors (which you may remember from "Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer"). Your other choice on CNN would be Uber-Retard Glenn Beck - who NEVER makes sense and seems to personify Gore Vidal's prophesy of the chuckling, grinning American fascist dictator.
Yep, pretty sure Jack was being sarcastic. So I think the attacks on him are unfounded, because he was just saying what we all know to be true from the perspective of the Conservatives. It's not that he agrees with it, mind you, just that the fact is, so long as Conservatives hold so much sway over private insurance, the decisions of those companies will reflect their agenda and priorities.
So cut Jack some slack people! :D
I don't know about you all but unless I am able to have an erection I die.
Its not a lifestyle choice that being a man I want to be able to have sex, nope its a medical condition and I suffer physical duress unless I get a boner.
Its not a medical condition that women are able to get pregnant and have to deal with the associated 9 months of physical changes, its a lifestyle choice that those trollops and c*nts want to go out and bang every thing out there like Vickey Iseman did.
And of course this whole thing was started by Carly Fiorina . . .
OH SNAP!!!
Come on, this is the angle to jump on, folks.
Because he can't throw Fiorina under the bus as easily as he could the old white guys.
If he really needs women's votes as badly as that segment implies, dems should smack him down but good here. oh no not the piledriver!!!
Whats with the hate on for viagra? Why are you people so offended by people having sex? You all treat it like a dirty little drug, and some brilliant witty insult to accuse someone of taking it, when its totally legit.
Cafferty is a typical rightwing gasbag who thinks all women are uppity, whiny and subservient to men.
8 dw Says: listen cafferty knows what he’s talking about.
1. he’s dysfunctional
2. he’s a dick
Limp or throbbin'?
I stated this in another post on this general topic, but it bears repeating:
Even when just used as birth control, the Pill serves essentially the same function as Viagra. Men take Viagra when the want to do it, when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. Women take the pill when they want to do it, when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. This statement works out logically if and only if we believe in the underlying principle that women should be in charge of when they have or don't have sex, and when they have or don't have babies. That is why the anti-choice crowd is also anti-birth-control: they don't think that women should be able to control their own reproduction, or their own sex lives.
dosido @ 11:
When you think about, Western medicine has always considered being female a disease. It's no coincidence that "hysterectomy" and "hysteria" have the same root: Greek "hysterikos" for "womb." Sometime, you just gotta cut the crazy out. \snark (;>
If it wasn't for Viagra, the Republican party would cease to procreate.
CAFFERTY: Well, you know, the answer is Viagra is used to treat a medical condition, erectile dysfunction. Birth control is a lifestyle choice. And that’s why insurance companies don’t reimburse for it unless pregnancy represents a danger for the woman. And then there’s a gray area where you can do a negotiation.
If the problem of not getting an erection is a medical condition, what do you do with that erection once the medical condition is treated, make a lifestyle choice? In the traditional sense, wouldn't an erection disorder treatment always lead to a lifestyle choice?
Cafferty's argument is dumb and makes no sense unless medicine to make a mans penis erect is used for other reasons (other than having intercourse). I really can't think of any other use.
McCain is a typical neocon who is careful not to step on the toes of all the dingbat looneys who support him. Religious nuts, medical lobbyists, and the old conservatives who think people shouldn't have intercourse, (unless it's with your wife on special occasions,... or with a prostitute or a young male congressional page).
I think Jack is being defensive. Viagra SHOULD be covered, because I NEED it! Whereas if you don't want to be impregnated, that's your choice. Dinosaur.
Wow, he dropped the ball on this one.
If anything is a "medical condition" getting pregnant is and if anything is a "lifestyle choice" taking pills to enable one to have sex certainly is. Being unable to screw is not a threatening "medical condition" you fucktard Cafferty. On the other hand, getting pregnant has of course a whole array of potential "conditions" associated with it, medical and otherwise. Gawd that was such an asinine comment, what an asshole.
Kevin @ 33:
I think that was his right testicle.
An erection is a normal biological function. If your bowels stop functioning, you get it treated. If your dick stops functioning, you get it treated. Why is this so hard to understandÉ
Snowball @ 30:
Well, closeted self-hating homosexuals can't procreate anyway, so this is sort of a moot point.
What drugs is Cafferty taking. A normally level headed guy comes out such an ignoramus statement? Tell the woman who has 10 kids and another on the way that birth control is a lifestyle choice, Jack. You are a real bonehead on this one.
Barrett D -- I don't think anyone is hating on Viagra. Sex is great! The point is the hypocrisy of these people thinking old dudes getting to have sex without embarrassment ("errr...this has never happened to me before....") is more medically necessary than young women being able to have sex without ending up preggers.
Just when you think there's no way he can miss this opportunity to finally please the ladies, Jacks off again.
birth control used as birth control should not be covered.
birth control used as treatment for an illness should be covered.
viagra used to cure erectile dysfunction (or any other illness) should be covered
viagra used as an aphrodisiac should not be covered.
Does that make sense to anyone...
it can be discussed whether any of that should be covered by an insurance. but the ability to get pregnant ist not a disease.
erectyl disfunction is a disease. (at a young age)
so where's the outrage?
Barrett D @ 18:
Even supposing that your premise is correct, that ED is an illness, and should be covered, why should that have anything to do with whether or not birth control is covered? We don't have to deny coverage for ED in order to cover birth control.
Your argument is crap.
Viagra really isn't a cure for any medical condition, it does not cure erectile dysfunction which can be caused by a number of medical conditions, some serious, some not. Erectile dysfunction is a symptom, not a disease.
20 Obummer Says: people are way too hard on other people here...
That's because we eat our Viagra.
"I'm strong to the "enda" 'Cause I eats me Viagra, I'm Popeye the Sailor Man..."
@34, by your definition "being awake" is also a medical condition. he clearly meant "disease".
I gotta point out that Cafferty was the only one there being frank about the whole issue. He told us what "the answer" is, which is the answer that the insurance companies give. They don't like to answer things like this publicly. The other two chuckleheads were trying to add spin to this, but Cafferty laid it out in black & white. I'm not convinced that this is what he really believes, but it sure-as-manure is what the policy IS for most HMOs. THESE are how the people who look after the health of Americans think, and THESE are the people who should be held accountable. Stop blaming the messenger for the message.
Uh...translation:
men controlling their own sexuality should be covered
women controlling their own sexuality should be expensive
Barrett D gets to make all the rules
'cause he's a man who needs Viagra
(I tried to be civil at first, but you just really, really don't know what you're talking about...)
Goddam, folks. This is not a Jack Cafferty issue (and if you can't connect his sarcasm about ED with the "subtle" comments on Scalia and Alito, I ain't gonna help ya).
It's a stupendously huge clusterfuck for McCain, and one he cannot undo whilst Fiorina is in camp.
The 'Pubs would have leapt on this as upon manna from heaven. Where are your skillz?
Bajaboy @ 43:
you're absolutely right, we don't have to deny coverage for ED in order to cover birth control. but people are saying that birth control ought to be covered BECAUSE viagra is covered (and then ironically saying that viagra shouldn't be covered anyway)
However, I don't think birth control should be covered regardless of whether or not ED is covered.
Barrett D @ 25:
Get a clue, dimbulb. It's not that people are hating on Viagra; it's that women are being denied something that is very important, and medically justified.
No one is trying to deny men the use of Viagra, or are you too moronic and illiterate to see that?
The inability to get an erection can be both physical (out of control, age, injurty, etc) or mental (not interested sexually... im not even joking here)
The ability to control pregnancy is just as selective as the ability to try to get pregnant (follow me here)
Would we stipulate that a man can only use viagra from an insurance company if and only if he attempts to potentially procreate with each sexual action made possible by that pill?
If a man would use viagra to have sex using a condom or some form of birth control, then it really sets in the exact same category as birth control for women.
This is IGNORING the health benefits (and risks) of the pill.
Our society traditionally hates the idea of sex (western society) and accepts it as a nessicary evil present after the fall of Adam. You are seeing this deeply embedded notion come to its full potential in this debate.
RoRo @ 47:
Well i can't let you get away with slander! Not that I'm offended, I'm just a healthy young man is all :)
I'm not making the rules, i'm trying to untwist this nonesense equating birth control to a physiological dysfunction
Barrett D @ 36:
And the inability to achieve an erection is also a natural (non)function. Heart attacks are natural. When bowels stop functioning, that's natural.
In the 21st century we're simply used to the fact that our culture has- SO FAR (with as much emphasis on this as possible)- learned how to trump the natural processes.
That's a totally intersting take on this -- although I would argue that women do take the brunt of it (which of these drugs is covered?) because of our part in the fall, with that dirty, nasty, fallic snake. See also the stud/slut dichotomy for more proof...
We're all puritans, whether we like it or not. Some people have used reason to elevate the debate. As a lesbian teacher once told me -
"I'm a lesbian, and I'm homophobic"
In other news: Pelosi: "Bush a total failure" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_on_go_pr_wh/pelosi_bush
Tell us something we don't already know. Your job was to put impeachment on the table. No wonder congress polls @ 18% approval which has to be an all time record low for any congress even the corrupt Tom Delay congress I don't think was that low. Do the job you were elected to do, impeach the chimp and watch those numbers go up.
A man wants to fuck, but can't...gotta fix that.
A woman wants to have intercourse but can't because she could get pregnant...tough shit.
Seems fair to me; what's the problem? These viagra guys can all just go fuck each other.
Why are we attempting to give birth control the same standard as Viagra? Doesn't make sense to me.
I think EVERY drug should be covered, publicly. But if the argument for birth control coverage is "How is it different from Viagra?" or "I want my contraception in pill form because I don't like the feel of condoms", then we're not doing so well in this fight.
Pregnancy is a medical condition.
He lost me at "lifestyle choice." Yuck. He should have said that Viagra treats a medical condition (Restful Leg Syndrome?), and birth control does not. Just because they're both related to poking doesn't make them equivalent. In a perfect world no one would have to pay for either pharmaceutical. But in our disastrous profit-driven American health care system, neither should be covered.
Look, given the fact that Americans whether right or left ARE THE WORST RESOURCE HOGS ON THE PLANET, I am all for whatever it takes to prevent them from cranking out more goddamned babies who will only suck up more resources.
An American hog is roughly equal to a Nigerian village in terms of resource depletion footprint. Fuck Viagra. I would favor draconian measures like China adopted to reduce our egocentric breeding proclivities.
In ecology there are species ways to opt out of excessive reproduction to safeguard the broader community. It is called 'eusocial'. So bees and mole rats and many other species have this mechanism to offset menacing population explosions. The gays and childless couples and so on are real hero's in this problem as they are not burdening the planet with more GODDAMNED MORON RESOURCE SUCKING IDIOT AMERICANS, whether right or left.
Birth Control should be free and easy and a drug to address the moron cock problems of hideous American men should be real expensive and should NEVER be subsidized by the health care system. Virility is a cosmetic issue like having a boob job. I am 53 and my bone ain't what it used to be but so what.
Barrett D @ 49:
Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. Having said that, your opinion is indicative of a closed mind, and a really ignorant, stupid, chauvanistic person. In orhte words, a moron.
Jack the Obama hack still bashes the Clintons.
Pelosi On Bush: God Bless That “Total Failure”
No, God damn that total failure.
Amen.
For those of us who have the ability to get pregnant, and aren't in a position to have a kid -- or just don't fucking want one -- it's not nonsense. Sure, we can just not have sex, but a lot of us non-baby-wanting women are married or in long-term relationships, and, well, want to stay in those arrangements. Just not having sex is also a choice that men who can't get it up can make, too. I mean, doing it is NOT a medically necessary thing for men OR women. Pooping, however, is quite necessary, which is why your "bowels" comment does not follow logically.
for those of you who genuinely think birth control should be covered regardless of viagra and ED, I respectfully disagree.
For those of you saying that men are favoured over women in the sexual lifestyle choices, please get a clue. The absence of the pill does not prevent a women from having safe sex. And viagra doesn't help a man have safe sex either. It just gives him an erection, it doesn't give him birth control.
I love half the stuff McCafferty does...it's so right on it makes me cheer...and then he puts out some BS like this that makes my teeth ache and I realize, in spite of some great insights, he's still part of the old guy network.
Jack Cafferty is a curmudgeon. A curmudgeon is a grumpy old man who needs Viagra because he got too old to get it up.
have you ever heard from one of these fucking
right to life assholes who is going to support all
these unwanted births. they don't want bigger
govt where more of the public needs support.
well, their way creates more burden on the
tax system since welfare is generally the
only support these births go.
maybe ALL REICHWINGNEOCONS will be
willing to each take in two+ of these births
into their homes to support at their own costs.
i guess the answer to that question is a resounding NO !
it's too bad most reichwingneocons moms had the
sense to just turn over, it seems many of their
hypocritical homophobic husbands do.
just ask larry craig........and other gop members.
Nicole did you catch this one?
McCain's Latest Iran Joke
By Michael D. Shear
Sen. John McCain hasn't had good luck joking about Iran. But he tried it again Tuesday.
Responding to a question about a survey that shows increased exports to Iran, mainly from cigarettes, McCain said, "Maybe that's a way of killing them."
He quickly caught himself, saying "I meant that as a joke" as his wife, Cindy, poked him in the back.
Last time, it was also Iran. His singing about bombing Iran to the theme of the Beach Boy's "Barbara Ann" drew derision from many quarters but a "lighten up" response from McCain.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/08/mccains_latest_iran_...
Barrett D...shove it up your sexist arsehole, will you?
Respectfully, wagonjack
I HAVE A PROBLEM IN MY SEX LIFE!!! I AM 46 YEARS old. NOW, I WANT TO USE A PRODUCT, BUT I WANT IT CHEAPER AND EFFECTIVE GENERIC VIAGRA... I DON'T WANT TO LOSE MY SEX LIFE WITH MY WIFE..WHERE COULD I BUY IT? I FOUND THIS WEBSITE Generic viagra
http://www.xlpharmacy.com/generic-viagra/ BUT I'M NOT SURE DOES ANYBODY USE THIS WEBSITE BEFORE?
I SMOKE A LOT OF EVERYDAYS... I WANT TO KNOW IF THE NICOTINE AFFECT MY ERECTILE DYSFUCTION AND WHAT CAN I DO? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO LOSE MY SEX LIFE! I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT VIAGRA PILL OR OTHER PRODUCTS FOR MY PROBLEM... I HOPE ANYBODY HELP ME, I FOUND THIS SITE Generic viagra http://www.xlpharmacy.com/generic-viagra/ HA! I THING SO, IT'S VERY EXPENCIVE. I WANT IT CHEAPER. PLEASE... SOMEBODY CAN HELP ME?
Barrett D @ 65:
Actually viagra does help a man have safe sex. Heres my 2-part logic.
You must have sex to have safe sex.
You must have an erection to have sex.
Has anyone noticed that Viagra seems to cause people to post copiously?
Barrett D:
Oh, see I thought I was just dealing with someone who hadn't thought the issue through. Now I know I'm dealing with a sexist asshole. I mean a respectful sexist asshole, of course.
Barrett D @ 49:
Really?
You want to tell that to my wife, who without the pill has the most horrendous pain and illness every month for over a week?
How would you like to writhe in pain and vomit three times a day, for 8 days, every month, for fourty years, because the only things that can help you are far too expensive for you to afford?
You tell me ONE MAN on this planet that suffers extreme pain from not taking viagra!
Widespread @ 72:
At least they're not screwing.
Jinx, wagonjak!
I don't get it. Sexism is hypocrisy. You are saying I am hypocritical, how? I oppose covered birth control, for women AND men.
I support coverage for dysfunctions in men AND women (Who the hell WOULDN'T??). There are certainly vaginal dysfunctions that ought to be covered as any penile dysfunction.
you see hypocrisy where there is none, that is your problem. I am not sexist, however, so you will ave to deal that we just disagree on the issue of covering birth control.
ps. <3 the internet: where anyone can be called a sexist
Since I don't have health care, I have to rely on porn.
Barrett D @ 49:
I am getting tired of males with 0 knowledge of medicine thinking that their ignorant views are somehow binding...
Jesus Hussein Christ @ 74:
not every women goes through that. in her case, the birth control is taken as treatment, not necessarily as birth control, that is more of the side effect. you understand?
RoRo @ 54:
The snake is just pure imagery. Genesis- well, The Bible- sends mixed messages when it comes to sex. To Adam and Eve, nomadic pastoralists, sex was bad. they wandered from place to place, surviving on what "God" (or nature)provided. But part of roaming around like this is that you can only carry so many children at a time. You leave space so that when child 1 can walk- or more importantly run for cover from predators- you can have child 2. Providing that "God"(or nature) has provided for you.
But then you discover that you can plant seeds and reap....The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge....You don't need to wander around for food any longer! You can stay in one safe spot, irrigate your fields, groww an excess of food, build pottery, walls, new-fangled weaponry...But you need people to do the job, so the space between children narrows from 3 or 4 years to 9 months or a year. Hell, sex is great if you've got stuff to feed all of those mouths, because those new critters will produce a bumper crop of food and more critters, and more people to worship the "God" who you no longer need to provide!
Then, after a while, you learn to grow massive quantities of food with less people, and you figured out that conceiving those kids didn't feel half bad, but you want the feeling of conception without the pain of birth...and those critters who used to grow food now had time on their hands to learn other ways to get around the old truths of nature. Except they still worship the God they no longer need.
Okay, I'm going on too long here, but that's my take. Or at least one part of it.
Barrett D @ 80:
It is YOU that do not understand.
This type of pain and nausea is not an isolated incident. Obviously you're not married nor have you had much experience in long-term opposite-sex relationships, or else you'd know just how far down your throat your foot is right now.
Again, name me one person on this planet that suffers from not taking viagra. There are MILLIONS of women around this planet that suffer without birth control, you sexist imbecile.
wagonjak @ 70:
LOL! I suspect that's a stunt that's going to require a massive amount of Viagra.
Well that explains it.
Dearest darling Barrett D. The above statement is a denial of an absolute reality that every female on the planet understands. That makes it either sexist or willfully ignorant of the state of anyone but yourself. If we were talking racism instead of sexism, one would expect a statement along the lines of "if you think blacks in this country have it harder than whites, please get a clue" to meet with some pretty intense criticism on a progressive blog. See how that works? Your above statement makes your blathering about viagra as medically necessary vs birth control as medically necessary totally crystal clear.
If you truly don't think you're sexist, maybe you should stop saying stupid things that make you seem like one in progressive spaces.
I'm sorry but watching men discuss women's health issues makes me laugh. There's little else to be taken from it.
cg @ 58:
emphasis mine.
THIS is exactly why the pill should be available under insurance. never-mind the failure rate of condoms, even when used properly.. if a guy uses that excuse it's a guy being a guy, if a woman uses it she's being a SLUT!
as a female, i can tell you it's not the feel that puts me off of condoms: it's the failure rate, the heightened risk of UTI, the paranoia that the guy using it (after trying the "i don't like the feel of it" excuse) bitterly pokes a little hole in the center of it...etc etc.. so it is VERY much my right to protect myself from making more children, or "worse" (if you're a right-winger) and aborting.
the biggest complaint i have is that when talking about Viagra/Cialis guys tend to get defensive and usually end up in "it's none of your goddamned business!" territory, yet they are perfectly comfortable in telling me what my business with my own sexuality is. F-that.
I'm willing to give Jack a nominal pass on this one.He's obviously repeating something he over heard.
As far as CNN goes he's the least painful of the bunch.
Life style choice is interesting however considering how the "choice" might boil down to have one more kid and wind up living in your car.
Word, Nada. Wouldn't it be way funnier, though, if men didn't have so much control over women's health issues?
btw, people seem to think i am against birth control - I especially am not. You seem to think I am against it being available at all, which I am not. But I must apologize, I am Canadian. "Coverage" here means paid for by taxes. I could care less what is covered in the health insurances you Americans pay for yourselves. IMO I don't think birth control should be covered under the universal program here in Canada. Let the insults continue though, they are entertaining.
RoRo @ 89:
I'm not offended that women discuss mens health issues. Should I be?
craig @ 13:
We have a winner.
Jesus Hussein Christ @ 82:
I can't name one, but sildenafil citrate is used to treat some relatively rare diseases, such as pulmonary arterial hypertension. Actually, the drug was initially being researched to treat high blood pressure when it was discovered that there was a highly marketable side-effect.
Also, there are a few oral contraceptives that are used to treat conditions such as ovarian (or is it uterine, or both?) cysts.
Just sayin'...
C'mon people, you gotta give Jack Cafferty a break on this one. When do you think was the last time he saw a vagina, let alone understand how one works?
But yes, he's a dick. Such a dick, in fact, that he requires Viagra to stand up.
"On June 10, 1957, the FDA approved Enovid 10 mg (9.85 mg norethynodrel and 150 µg mestranol) for menstrual disorders based on data from its use by more than 600 women."
This is what sexist assholes like Cafferty and BarrettD have no fucking clue about. This drug was developed for women with menstrual disorders, not for young girls to get the gov't to keep them from getting pregnant.
"Combined oral contraceptive use reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 40% and the risk of endometrial cancer by 50%.
The hormones in "the Pill" can be used to treat some medical conditions, such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, adenomyosis, anemia related to menstruation, and painful menstruation (dysmenorrhea). In addition, oral contraceptives are often prescribed as medication for mild or moderate acne.[85] The pill can also induce menstruation on a regular schedule for women bothered by irregular menstrual cycles and certain disorders where there is dysfunctional uterine bleeding.
RoRo @ 85:
maybe i live in a society that is far less sexist than yours.
Andy K Jong Il @ 93:
that would be.. most hormonal pills. i am one with PCOS, and while the difference in efficacy in treatment lies with the style of pill, all progesterone/estrogen pills help with Polycystic and endometriosis, and the symptoms therein.
Apparently his sarcasm was still lost on a majority of posters here. This leads me to believe that the majority posting here had their mind framed by the headline and just fell in line with what the author wanted you to do.
Good thing the MSM doesn't achieve that same sort of result... You know, framing the debates and eliciting a preconceived response...
(Just so you know that I was being sarcastic)
Speaking as a physician, I will attest this line of sophistry is pure Grade-A bullshit.
To be consistent w/ this premise, why - oh, why - would insurance monopolies electively choose to cover "medical conditions" such
well-child exam
vaccinations
mammography
the
list
goes
on and on and on
For once, just try using a line of actual facts, republicans
elysse @ 97:
I didn't know what to search to find that. It's easy to pop "Viagra" into a search engine and come up with sildenafil citrate. It's not so easy to narrow it down with "birth control pills". ;^D
If you don't have contraceptive coverage you better talk to your employer (Or maybe your state reps) cause most benefit packages are chosen by the employer group. And most employers in my home state (IL) cover contraceptives. There are various state mandates and hurdles which makes the regulations vary from state to state. Just sayin'.
I've heard Canada's great, but I would wager that even Candadian women would agree that the way society views their sexual choices is different from the way men's choices are viewed. In which case, of course, it's you who needs to get a clue.
ysbaddaden @ 4:
'the gays'? wtf ? I'm middle aged and caught 'teh ghey' a long time ago....never needed any boner pills.
Andy K Jong Il @ 100:
bwahahaha! it's a female conspiracy! ;)
actually, i'm not surprised. there are SO many different pills nowadays, different dosages, etc etc.. Yasmin/Yaz is the latest one which is not only quite expensive but is apparently the only one that's not progesterone-based. i guess what i'm saying is for all the years we've had The Pill, it's been marketed in 5 billion different ways and prices, but still really boils down to the Full Pill or the Mini Pill.. as far as i'm concerned there's really no reason that it shouldn't be covered, at this point it should be Public Domain seeing as how progesterone is in our water supply from so many women using it over the years.
i digress. it's all too easy.
OK, JayDog, maybe I was a little, er, hard on Cafferty. He does, er, shoot out the humourous zingers every once in awhile at some deserving target.
He overshot the runway on this one.
James @ 98:
Cafferty? I don't think he was being sarcastic, but I don't think he was stating any sort of opinion, either. Sounded to me that he was just stating thew policies of insurers who won't cover the cost of birth control.
That posting read like a joke. Really now; who actually believes that if a drug has uses in pathological conditions, that those pathological conditions become a justification for the drug's use under normal conditons?
And just as silly, that some individuals' inappropriate use of a drug like viagra should or could bring its insurance basis into question (anymore than some inappropriate uses of analgesics would do so), OR that its unique circumstances would justify some other drug to some other demographic for a different purpose or condition? Check your thinking and objectivity people.
RoRo @ 89:
It would be funnier if we could castrate them and tell them we don't think they're responsible enough to make decisions about their own balls.
elysse @ 104:
LOL!
No, what I meant is that everyone knows Sildenafil Citrate as Viagra...It's a marketing thing! If birth control pills were marketed the same way, you could just pop in the marketed name- Ididitmywaygra, maybe?- and, BOOM, you find that little factoid you know that you know, knowing that you don't know the particulars. Ya know?
Andy K Jong Il @ 106:
Exactly! But in a way, he was being sarcastic in describing those policies as well. That's the point I've been trying to make all this time while most of the posters on here seem hell bent on taking him literally as though he actually support what he said.
I don't know about you americans, but in Canada birth control is available over the counter, without a prescription. That is any woman can go in and get them, which is great, anyone woman who wants them can go get them, for whatever use they want. I don't know if its covered or not under medicare. I don't think it should be, unless she is diagnosed with an illness. I don't think viagra should be covered automatically either, unless he's been diagnosed with an illness. Is that really a sexist view?
I don't think a bottle of advil should be free for anyone who has a headache. Some of you seem to think all medication should be all free. Thats far more "progressive" than I think is actually progressive. Again, not a sexist view, it is my view on drugs and coverage of them in general, specifically in the context of the Universal Coverage.
Is vasectomy covered? It seems like a much better parallel. If it isn't covered, then the policy is consistent. If it is, then that's a pretty sexist policy.
(assuming that non-birth control uses of the pill are covered )
Barrett D @ 90:
Thankfully in socialized systems doctors get to decided what gets covered. Unlike in the American system in which the greedy hicks seem to be the ones making the decisions.
I assume that you will also be opposed to all sorts of vaccinations, or any form of preventive medicine in general right?
And here is a couple of little dirty secrets: most forms of ED are usually associated to poor lifestyle choices, namely you stuffed your face way too much for 20+ years and now your arteries can't barely pump enough blood to your brain, never mind your dick.
And the reason why many socialized health care systems cover the pill for a simple reason: it is cheaper to pay for the pill than having to cover the outcome of an unwanted pregnancy be it in the form of social services needed to protect and care for a child, or the more drastic approach of abortion.
In any case, if you had sex in a regular basis (if ever which that may be your case) you'd be plenty grateful that your partner has access to the pill in an affordable fashion.
I always find it fascinating that males get to dictate what health services or choices should be available to women, and more over I get a kick about people who clearly don't have sex trying to opine on contraception.
Get rid of viagra, and you won't need birth control for "republican" women.
Think of the possibilities? A place where only liberal men and women reproduce! I see peace, harmony, and the end of evil.
Of course it will ruin Rush's favorite vacation destinations, but that is part of the eliminating evil benefit.
elysse @ 87:
Emphasis mine:
As a fellow guy, I say if a guy uses that excuse, then he doesn't get any. :P
As far as the other issues with condoms you mentioned: that's what SHOULD be the attack line, at least against that particular form of contraception. It's just that I can't stand people who have no fucking idea on how to take care of their bodies try to make the case for birth control for those who know what they're talking about. These are women who should be PAID to take birth control, if you get my drift.
Barrett D @ 111:
You obviously now 0 about contraceptive pills, do you?
James @ 110:
I don't have cable, so I usually only see clips of Cafferty at C&L, and he's a sarcastic bastard, and obviously so when he's trying. I don't think he was trying to be sarcastic here. He stated the insurance companies' line as a way to get to what he saw as the topic: McCain's position on the issue, not how birth control should be categorized.
Not that birth control isn't an interesting topic, and one that doesn't need to be addressed (hell, I'm a ZPGer, so I think it's fuckin' important), I just don't think Cafferty's highlighted comment was taken in proper context.
Although temporary, pregnancy IS a medical condition that contraceptives are designed to prevent (as well as other conditions). If a woman wants to prevent a medical condition, which can and does have risks, insurance companies should honor that request, for no other reason then the interest of the woman's health. Besides, which is cheaper? A contraceptive prescription or covering the health needs of a child for 18 years and beyond?
Appeal to the insurance company's bottom line, and they usually come around.
Andy K Jong Il @ 117:
What's a ZPGer? I don't think I ever heard that term before.
Vasectomy the same as the pill? I don't think so, vasectomy is an invasive procedure the pill is not. Vasectomy is sometimes reversible, the pill is reversible.
Maybe you should try tuba ligation (SP?) vs vasectomy if you want to compare apples to apples instead of apples to automobiles.
Assuming non birth control uses are not included in the above statements.
James @ 119:
Nevermind, I think I figured it out, "Zero Population Growth"?
Zero Population Growth
My tangential little thing up @81 starts to tell the story. The majority of humans are agriculturalists, even if they don't know it, and agriculture has caused not only more humans than there should be, but has also completely fucked over the stability of the planet. And I'm not talking about run-off here, I'm talking about EVERYTHING that has stemmed from it: technology. Agriculturists have been running un-checked for about 6,000-8,000 years, and thee are all of these swell little gadgets that we've gotten from it, but what's the ultimate cost?
Barrett D @ 111:
I could care less if its sexist or not. The important thing to me, is that it is not a smart view.
Anyone who wants birth control should be able to get it. There have seen so many unwanted children abused and neglected, left to tragic circumstances by people who should have never become pregnant, that it makes me sick. And once they are born, the republicans don't want to help these kids, because that's "welfare" that isn't earmarked for a Bush crony.
As far as worrying about the taxpayers (you sound like one of those few and far between Canadian conservatives; not that there's anything wrong with that), after the Bush crime-family taxpayer crony rape of 2001-2009, I don't ever want to hear republican's complain about fiscal restraint ever again! As long as I live. Ever!
"There", not "thee". Unless you consider yourself an amalgamation of swell little gadgets.
The Dude @ 113:
Thankfully in socialized systems doctors get to decided what gets covered. Unlike in the American system in which the greedy hicks seem to be the ones making the decisions.
I assume that you will also be opposed to all sorts of vaccinations, or any form of preventive medicine in general right?
And here is a couple of little dirty secrets: most forms of ED are usually associated to poor lifestyle choices, namely you stuffed your face way too much for 20+ years and now your arteries can't barely pump enough blood to your brain, never mind your dick.
And the reason why many socialized health care systems cover the pill for a simple reason: it is cheaper to pay for the pill than having to cover the outcome of an unwanted pregnancy be it in the form of social services needed to protect and care for a child, or the more drastic approach of abortion.
In any case, if you had sex in a regular basis (if ever which that may be your case) you'd be plenty grateful that your partner has access to the pill in an affordable fashion.
I always find it fascinating that males get to dictate what health services or choices should be available to women, and more over I get a kick about people who clearly don't have sex trying to opine on contraception.
______________
Well a cuple of things. I am not at all opposed to preventative vaccines. In Ontario every year before winter flu shots are free to every citizen. Its a great service, one I take advantage of. The flu, and other contagious diseases are indeed of public health concern, and no doubt that in winter either you or someone you know will have the flu. Especially without the shots.
I am not some ogre who thinks every person should reap what they sow. But, take into context of what socialized medicine actually is. We as a society have agreed that in ones life time either you or someone you love is going to need a drug or a surgery or a treatment that is very VERY expensive. These are the services in which we pool our resources so that people don't go bankrupt to get chemotherapy or whatever treatment they direly need and couldn't afford by themselves otherwise. This is a great thing.
But. I think some people take this ideology too far, that every little drug is akin to cancer treatment and somehow unbudgetable. I am still for personal responsibility and personal choices. It is my opinion that some conditions are not so "dire" to the individual to be called upon society to help pull the weight for them. Birth control is available, condoms are available, advil is available, they all don't need to be free and socialized, they are manageable costs on the individual level.
I am not at all dictating what women can or cannot do. You say that as if I think the pill should be banned. No in fact any women can go buy them.
Sorry, "Barrett D," but not being able to get it up isn't a threat to anyone's physical health. No way, no how. If a guy happens to be bonerless because of some other health condition, that's an entirely different story, but then he should be taking something else to treat it.
If you're trying to argue that it's essential for guys to get it up so they can procreate, well, there's always artificial insemination. I doubt the majority of Viagra users are taking it to make babies...
bob @ 120:
Insurance companies are arguing that birth control is not covered because fertility is not disease. By the same logic, potency is also not disease. Vasectomy, whether reversible or not, serves the same end as the pill. It's cheap and only minimally invasive, probably cheaper than a few years of pills and probably easier in the end. Regardless, neither of those factors is relevant to the criterion used by the insurers. Since it is the insurers criterion we are testing, the other factors don't matter.
But it would also be nice to know whether or not "tube tying" is covered as well.
Double standards.
And yes, birth control is used to treat medical conditions (including ovarian cysts) even though I consider choosing not to get pregnant a good reason, too. It's all about wanting to control who has sex. Better to let someone like John McCain be able to bone a much younger wife than for 20-40 year old women be in control of their bodies.
Viagra is a life style drug in that ED is not life threatening. Claritin is also a a life style drug because nasal congestion due to allergies is not life threatening. I suppose birth control pills to prevent pregnancy is a life style drug but it is cheaper to cover birth control that to cover birth and then put the resulting children on your health insurance plan. If Viagra is covered under one's plan, someone has to decide how many tablets one gets per month. The ironic thing about ED drugs is that they are contra indicated for most causes of ED. There have also been cases of vision loss. I hope it was worth it for them.
rekroc @ 127:
Even then, why? These medical marvels are great for human emotions, but they're bad for humans. We've stopped evolving simply because we wanted to.
Man, when the pandemics really start to hit, and there's absolutely nothing that mankind can do but sweat it out, I hope that there's some natural immunity left in a few of us.
bob@120 said
But it would also be nice to know whether or not “tube tying” is covered as well.
I am a former military wife (in the 80s, maybe things have changed since then). Back then, the military covered tubal ligation. I know because I had one at a military hospital and didn't pay anything. They also covered all gynecology exams and birth control. What was no longer being covered were abortions, although they used to be done at military hospitals, too.
rekroc @ 127:
That doesn't sound cost effective. But either way, say dry vagina. If you think a man cannot get a prescription for viagra then a woman cannot get a prescription for vaginal cream. correct? or if a woman cannot get pregnant via intercourse then therefore she should skip the treatment so that she may and go straight for the artificial insemination?
I've said this before elsewhere:
Viagra give boners to men who can't get boners on their own. They want the boners in order to have sex. This, apparently, is crucial to mens' "health" (does this mean they will not live if they don't get boners?).
Many of these men will want to have sex with women who don't want to get pregnant. Many of these men will want to have sex and not get anyone pregnant. Per Cafferty and those who agree with him, women who don't want to get pregnant should not have a medical way to do this and should instead keep their legs closed.
So now we have men with medically induced boners and women with their legs closed. Is this the real "gay agenda"?
NMDonkey @ 132:
I asked the question, but I'm sure bob is interested too.
It would be nice if all of it was covered. I don't think insurers are being sexist, just stingy. I do agree that if men got pregnant Congress and the 82nd Airborne Division would be called out to force the insurers to pony up the dough. I don't think sex should become a privilege for those who can afford it. Hee Hee, That's funnier than I meant it to be.
Barrett D @ 133: That doesn't sound cost effective. But either way, say dry vagina. If you think a man cannot get a prescription for viagra then a woman cannot get a prescription for vaginal cream. correct? or if a woman cannot get pregnant via intercourse then therefore she should skip the treatment so that she may and go straight for the artificial insemination?
I don't think I've ever seen a prescription for KY Jelly...
The point is--and you really don't seem to get it--being bonerless isn't a health issue. And, again, I seriously doubt the majority of Viagra users are taking it to make babies.
Just to let you folks know O'reilly said the exact thing tonight word for word. I thought that pregnancy was a medical condition but I'm a man and I may be wrong.
Widespread @ 73:
Now, that explains a lot of the duplicate messages!!
Barrett D @ 133:
"vaginal cream"? have you ever actually been near a woman (other than your mom?)?
even if there was a dryness problem, that's still within a 'Man's' territory and comfort: we can get things for that over the counter, lest some poor wee-wee gets chafed.
"dry vagina"
i'm going to be laughing about that one for a day or so.
what a total fucking jerk! seriously, what the fuck? I guess when the guy's wrong, he's sooooo wrong its hard to even fathom.
UMMMMM - GUYS - girls having birth control is IN YOUR INTEREST TOO!! how fucking stupid are some of you troglodytes that you can't even get the self-interested part of all of this? I can't believe people think there's even a debate to have about this. its no wonder this country is in the state its in. its male population is nearly 100% complete and total idiots. the women are slightly better off, but not much...
onceler @ 140:
actually, i wonder if this is some sort of social experiment: back to the bad old days when the women kept it frigid and only the sweetest of sweet-talkers got lucky? nah, that wouldn't have worked then, either. not only do women have desires, but back then it was still acceptable to 'discipline' a woman.
even if we did regress to that, they'd think they'd be able to get some....only to find that it would be a very liberal country within a generation or two. ;-)
What Jackoff is saying is that men should be given a drug that is going to cause pregnancy in many cases.
Well, women should be able to get a drug that says "Not with my body,Bub!"
Besides, the older we get the farthur away from the carnal world we should be going. We should be becoming spiritual and getting ready to meet death.
One more thing -- how many men take this boner enhancement drug and then go on sex trip to rape children?
wow i don't know if i want to get in this conversation
but i will say i personally always thanked my girlfriends
of the past for taking BC.......some of my girlfriends had an improvement with their menstrual period...seems to me that could be considered under medical condition
In response to Barrett D's comment about "vaginal cream":
Vaginal cream is not used solely for "dry vagina" (I assume you mean as a necessary product to enjoy intercourse). There is hormonal cream that is given to women to treat symptoms of menopause.
Incidentally, I am a woman and not opposed to men using viagra; I have male friends who have benefitted from obtaining the drug (and it's not entirely "covered" by their insurance policies, they still have to pay to get it). What I'm concerned with is members of the media--especially males--perpetuating myths (such as that birth control is needed for a lifestyle choice, whereas viagra is for a medical condition). ED can be caused by medical conditions; left untreated, its existence is in no way threatening to anyone's medical condition. Technically, preventing a woman from getting birth control pills can lead to more serious problems (I have friends who have been given birth control pills to treat ovarian cysts, for example).
Frankly, at this stage in discussions about healthcare in America, I'm more offended that men like John McCain and Dick Cheney have anything to say at all about health insurance or healthcare. Neither man would be alive today if he didn't have the exceptional coverage afforded to him. In the private sector, if either one tried to get coverage, he would be denied based on the existence of "previous conditions."
Just because I can't be a senator or vice-president, why shouldn't I have access to the best healthcare in the world?
Sorry myboysherman , I thought that bob@120 had asked the question, but I hope I answered it (based on what I know from 20 years ago) for both of you.
Now, maybe someone should ask why is it that military women have access to breast augmentation on their health care "plan"?
Comments are closed on this entry