Deep Deep thoughts
By John Amato Monday Jul 27, 2009 5:00pmYou never hear any Senators and Blue Dogs asking or debating if Viagra should be covered by health care while woman's reproductive rights are always being attacked, especially if it's in the public option. Chris Wallace brought it up on FNS even though it's a right guaranteed by our laws. Why should this even come up in the discussion?
WALLACE: Are you prepared to say that in a government public-funded, taxpayer-funded public health insurance plan that no taxpayer money will go to pay for abortions?
ORSZAG: I think that that will wind up being part of the debate. I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It's obviously a controversial issue, and it's one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.
WALLACE: So you're not prepared to rule out...
ORSZAG: I'm not prepared to rule it out.
How about we start demanding that Viagra should no longer be covered. Let's see how the men of Congress react to that news.
Once again women draw the short stick here. Men try to control their bodies, but want freedom to do what they will. Have you noticed how all the Sunday shows take such a negative view of the health care reform debate? Every question is framed at defeating it and it's like they are trying to tank reform so they can cover a defeat for Obama's presidency regardless on how it affects the American people. But when you see the Villagers talk about, oh, I don't know, holding hearing on torture they all freak out and say it'll make DC such a toxic place and that should never happen.
Login or Register to post comments.
Men and women should not force each other into servitude.
This is one area I'd be willing to compromise in if a government run plan was put into effect in the country. I believe it's totally up to the mother, but don't most insurers these days not pay for abortions as well? I thought it's pretty much up to the person to come up with the 2grand or whatever amount the procedure costs.
I'm not sure this is a valid comparison.
Viagra is a drug. Abortion is a surgical procedure, isn't it?
Maybe a vasectomy would be a better comparison.
"How about we start demanding that Viagra should no longer be covered."
That'll never stand up.
;)
...
I doubt you'll get Congressman Boner (R. Ohio) up to cutting THAT off!
Always refreshing to hear a bunch of white guys talking about what women can and cannot do to their bodies.
I pose this question to these elitists, how many women get abortions because the man abandons her or is not willing to take any responsibility. I can't understand why women as a whole don't stand up and tell these men to go to hell.
or is not willing to take any responsibility"
Did someone commit an offense against another, or did they merely engage in a pleasurable consensual activity, not intending to marry or parent? Why choice for women, but denial of choice for men?
Saying men must be forced to take responsibility for unborn growing potential people is no different than saying women must be forced do the same with their bodies.
"I can't understand why women as a whole don't stand up and tell these men to go to hell." How about,
"The Scheming Bastards are trying to trap us!"
Let's be real.
I don't want health care to be derailed by abortion rights. I agree that paying for abortion -- a health decision, not one to be moralized by others -- is an issue, but it's not at the level of health care overall and we shouldn't conflate the two. Let them keep the "Hyde Amendment" if it means we get the public option. We should deal with that amendment in separate legislation.
Bill O"Reilly said it best in July, 2008;
"OK, listen up. Viagra is used to help a medical condition. That’s why it’s covered. Birth control is not a medical condition. It is a choice. Why should I or anybody else have to pay for other people’s choices? Do I have to buy you dinner before you use the birth control?'
Basically, women be damned.
We now know why these Republicans need their Viagra, not only are they in bed with their staff members but with big Pharma as well-no wonder they have performance anxiety.
if you shop around and don't wait til the 2nd trimester, you can find an abortion provider who will do it for under $1,000. Not sure why it needs to be publicly financed. As for limp-dicked old men, I'd say the cause of that that particular disease is specific to the LDOM's partner.
Sorry John, off topic, but my right-wing sister sent a mass email to me and my family. The old "What if George Bush gave the Queen an iPod...." etc. etc. If I had the time, I'd reply to each of the 10 or so points in the email. Just wondering if anyone has a link to somewhere that debunks (or explains) each point.
abortion is totally divorced from "health" issues, and that women should be thrown under the bus to get "real" health care passed. Meanwhile, access to Viagra is held to be sacred. The level of idiocy and navel gazing has me spitting nails....
Mine doesn't. That said, it seems to me that as long as abortion is a legal, medical option, the same rules will apply that apply to other procedures: if it's deemed medically necessary by the physician, and if the health insurance bureaucracy agrees, then insurance will pay for it. If either condition is false, then the individual will have to cough up the dough.
The cost to society for unplanned babies is huge.
Making abortion freely available would save huge wads of health-care money, public-money directed toward raising unplanned, disadvantaged children, and better-allow women and men to grow into who they want to be, free to pursue their own essence, instead of being doomed to premature parental responsibilities, forced to serve the purposes of others.
In addition to abortion, we need comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education for all children and teens plus easy availability of birth control devices, pills, condoms, etc.
This will reduce the need for abortions. (I realize that the fundamentalists don't really want to reduce the need for abortions, though -- it's such an excellent way to control people!)
...and personal choice threaten the livelihoods of the crooks and liars who scheme to control others with mystical notions about what responsibility means.
The real question is whether an insurance plan (government or private) pays for deliveries and pre- and post-natal care -- which virtually all of them do. Since these services are more expensive than an abortion, then not paying for an abortions, birth control and other family planning measures is a form of religiously motivated discrimination that can have a devastating impact on the lives of affected women and their partners.
Btw, plans that decide not to pay for any pregnancy related services in order to avoid the argument above, would pay even greater costs down the road as pregnancy complications and birth defects create the need for lifelong treatment -- not to mention the unnecessary suffering that would represent.
Obviously, we don't want to force women into having abortions as a cost-saving measure, but it is equally unconscionable to incur huge additional costs to force women to carry pregnancies to term against their wishes.
I don't think too many, if any, plans cover Viagra. I'd be interested to hear from those who know.
As it so happens, Viagra is not covered by some, perhaps many, health plans, not even for those who have undergone prostate or other similar invasive surgery. It does not help this discussion to focus on inaccurate non-issues.
This has been a Repub thang for too long. And us Libs moan about Viagra. THe discussion should be: If no reproductive health medication and no contraception, then no Viagra, Cialis, Rogaine, Lipitor (for men). And go a step further should there be an issue with HPV vaccine: No testicular cancer therapy (Disclosure: I am a Testicular Cancer survivor), no vasectomies, no vasectomy reversals, no prostrate exams or therapy and no male urology work-ups. Hit them where it hurts...pun intended.
Viagra is a general purpose vasodilator, meaning anyone that has a disease that causes blood vessels to constrict may really needs it, regardless of gender. Thus I know of someone who has to argue w/insurance company to cover the cost of Viagra (which is astronomically expensive if you pay out of pocket) for a female dependent. Although it was approved for gender, a second appeal has to be made for the dosage. This is for a couple that pay through the nose each month for COBRA coverage which is expiring soon. The moral bankruptcy around the fact that Viagra is used as a lifestyle drug when there is a serious medical necessity around it is troubling.
Men who may depend on drugs for their better sexual health are not automatically villains, and may well be supportive of another individuals right to choose what they may grow-inside/expel-from their bodies.
they may not automatically be villians, but when has the ability to have an erection been proffered as a medical necessity? If you have heard that as a justification, please advise.
I just kind of thought that services that are considered "medical necessities" are those that should be covered services by health insurance.
If birth control is not considered a medical necessity, then hard-ons shouldn't be considered as a medical necessity either especially if it isn't.
If it's an issue of catering to a man's "manliness" it's a crock of crap and it is also discriminatory treatment, or sexist in application.
Many insurance plans, most even, will cover surgery for penile implants, but not drugs to do the same thing. There is no "medical necessity" stipulation in health care plans. Most won't pay for procedures that are cosmetic, but restoring a bodily function that is at the core of most people's existence seems pretty damned important when you're still active and the problem's a result of cancer. Your way of thinking would stop insurers from paying for breast implants after mastectomies due to breast cancer. Is that what you relly want? I'm sorry, but the ability to have sex is at least as important as having boobs.
What a douchebag. Wallace is making shit up. The top marginal rate is rarely paid by anyone, especially if you're trying to add the state and local taxes because you can deduct those from your federal taxes.
Wallace: Do you think this is for the big unions? Will we have to pay for abortions? And let me pull some projections out of my ass.
This has been a sore point for me for a long time. Women are being told we cannot make decisions regarding our own health. In order for us to choose not to have a "baby" we, even being of sound mind and legal age, most of us supporting ourselves, must have permission from someone. We know that some anti-choice proponents even think that a woman who is pregnant by rape or incest should be forced to give birth. The girl/woman is most usually cast as the instigator (she wanted it because of the way she was dressed or a 5-year old was "flirting" with me).
Yet, we must pay for men to be able to have erections. I have never heard that having an erection is a "medical necessity." Since it isn't, why should it be a covered medication? A crock of crap.
Having a left hand isn't a medical necessity either, but if yours was cut off, I'd bet you'd like to have it attached and have it covered by your insurance. Read my other post.
When it comes to erection problems and prostate cancer there is a pretty quick fix. Does it vex Man Hood that they can't find a way for men to outlive women?
I'm all for covering birth control pills, abortions and fertility treatments under all plans, private or public.
But as I just found out, only 45% of the insurance companies actually cover erectile dysfunction (ED) drugs.
I'm recovering from a radical prostatectomy, one of the side effects of which is at least temporary ED. My general practicianer, my surgeon, and the surgeon who invented nerve sparing prostate surgery all stress the importance of ED drugs in returning to normal, or nearly normal, sexual performance.
I'm only 50 years old, so I should expect a good number of years of normal sexual activity, but that won't happen without the drugs. Even with them it may be a year or more before I return to almost normal function.
I'm covered by what I thought was a very good insurance program at work. I work for one of the largest banks in the US, one that received government funds but really didn't need them. Anyway, Viagra didn't work for me. Cialis did. But my health care plan does not cover it...6 pills costs me $118 out of pocket. That'll come to about $1,300 per year.
Believe me, this is not a recreational drug. Not being able to afford them may mean longterm dysfunction and even now, 4 months after my surgery, the condition causes considerable emotional distress.
ED drugs need to be covered. Period. Oh...I think the VA will ONLY cover them if you have had surgery. I'm not a vet, though.
Nancy Pelosi allowed contraceptive assistance for Medicaid mothers to be cut from the stimulus package. In many cities, the only way for poor women to get contraceptive aid (and Pap smears) is through Planned Parenthood, and the wingnuts terrorize them for giving out pills to prevent abortions.
Yes, I think that Viagra assistance should be struck from any and all medical plans until contraceptives are allowed, and that the two should be tied together inextricably, until such time as we get as sensible as Britons and sell contraceptive pills without prescriptions or shame.
You didn't read my posts above did you? ED drugs are not "fun drugs". When you have cancer and they rip your gut open to cut out a piece of your body to prevent you from dying, and a side effect of that is you are no longer able to perform sexually, believe me, the drugs aren't for "fun", they are for trying to regain a bodily function that is rather important for a man and his partner's quality of life. It's bad enough suffering from the threat of cancer and the invasive surgery (4 months after mine and I'm not fully recovered) without also being deprived of something that allows you your deepest and most intimate connection with your partner (in this case, my wife of 16 years and only sexual partner for 22 years).
There's no reason to tie ED drugs in with drugs/procedures for reproductive health and control. Both should be covered. Period. Denying one because of the other is simply adding one wrong on top of another.
The link is that people who work to block easy access to contraception usually justify such bans on the grounds that contraception encourages casual sex, teen sex, extramarital sex, etc.
Since the same argument can be made with the same level of accuracy for ED treatments, then linking the two is a way to point out the absurdity of not covering contraception and of expanding the pool of affected people enough to guarantee a backlash.
Login or Register to post comments.