TxGoat

Hmmm, probably the first time the Forum's "Here are the similar threads we found:" hasn't appeared for me. I guess these two words have never been used as a thread title that often. But I digress....

As I started to say, and as the title suggests, Contraception has been on the news of late thanks to a certain loud-mouthed hypocritical talk show host that sort of forced it onto the front page. My question regarding contraception is if people have such difficulty with an insurance provider being forced to allow this as part of a woman's reproductive health plan, why are these people perfectly ok with Viagra being covered? It seems like a contradiction of convictions (about contraception-say that 3 times) IMO, and I just don't see it.

I wonder if some men (and sadly some women) understand that contraception isn't just used to prevent pregnancy. I knew a woman that had a disease that caused her PMS symptoms to practically debilitate her. She would have to take off a few days out of the month because she couldn't function. The "pill" was prescribed for her to minimize her symptoms and allow her to function without taking sick days.

I understand that some people claim that Viagra should be allowed because some men feel inadequate about not being able to express their physical love for their wife of XX years. I don't personally have any problem with that reasoning, but if you consider the view of people like that obnoxious talk show host mentioned above, how is Viagra not a prescription that gives someone a license to have recreational sex, and thus if contraception is disqualified for that reason, how can Viagra be justified?

Hopefully more than just guys will chime in since a guy can't really speak on behalf of a woman. I do know that the person I knew with extreme symptoms had them so bad that I couldn't help but feel sorry for her and the pain she had to endure on a monthly basis.

breadnatty08

The contraception talk is just completely barbaric to me. Limbaugh has blown it so out of proportion. This shouldn't even be in discussion in this day.
Personally, I've known a woman who took it in her teens for reasons completely unrelated to birth control (she was a devout Christian who absolutely believed in abstinence). I think family planning should be part of ones' health plan (we certainly do it). Granted I don't believe (and really I'm just bs'ing here) that most pills/patches/IUDs cost a ton, but it's certainly a cost that's more important than Viagra et al.

mike114

The question is, who do you believe should pay for it?

__________________
Obama/Biden 2012...Because some Americans still have jobs!! ~ Mike Church

breadnatty08

The insurance companies. Why Limbaugh and O'Rielly honestly think it's paid for with tax dollars is beyond me.

mike114

Should there be an increase in rates for those who want this type of coverage, or will we all be forced to pay into it? You do realize the insurance companies will not be giving this away for free, nor should they.

TxGoat

Then there should be a rate increase on smokers, people that dine at fast food restaurants, anyone that's overweight, people that don't exercise regularly, people that play any organized sport that may cause injury, people that ride motorcycles, old men that want a sexually active lifestyle, people that drink alcohol, and people that eat a lot of red meat.

If you don't think that you should have anything to do for the welfare of women's reproductive help then I'll agree with you if you'll agree with me that I shouldn't have to pay any property taxes that go towards any schools nor that I should be required to obey school zone laws. I don't have any children, thus I shouldn't be forced to go 20 mph. If you chose to have children then it's solely your responsibility to see that your children cross the street safely.

Last edited by TxGoat; March 7th, 2012 at 05:11 AM.

mike114

So should this be decided by the free market or by the heavy hand of government? In other words, should health insurance companies interview their potential customers and quote rates according to their life styles, or should government mandate coverage even though a vast majority of people will never use it? Bottom line, I don't want contraceptive coverage nor am I willing to pay it for someone else.

TxGoat

See my edit above. If you can agree that people that don't have children shouldn't be subject to school property taxes nor to school zones then I'll gladly agree with you. I'm personally sick of coming to a complete stop when a school bus is loading and unloading children. If they can't manage to navigate around traffic then they have no business being out in public.

mike114

This is irrelevant to what I asked. Should the government force these mandates onto insurance companies (private businesses) or should they be allowed to adjust prices according to what each individual policy holder would like covered? It's a very simple question.

And if you want to avoid property taxes, move into an apartment. I would rather have states do away with property taxes all together as I believe that is a violation of my private property rights.

And your argument about traffic laws are plain silly.

TxGoat

It's silly, but I'm trying to make a point. I'm guessing you have children or grandchildren, thus you want to ensure the welfare of those children. Sometimes, everyone is asked to contribute to the welfare of the community to improve the well being of our society as a whole. We can't just cherry pick what benefits us exclusively.

Considering that insurance companies have been known to cancel people's policies after a policy holder has been diagnosed with cancer or some other disease after years of coverage, do you really believe that an insurance company can be trusted to do what's right by the policy holder in spite of their share holder's best interest?

Do you think Viagra should be covered under a regular plan or do you think it should cost the policy holder extra?

Last edited by TxGoat; March 7th, 2012 at 06:12 AM.

mike114

Please don't think I am a defender of health insurance companies. I despise them almost as much as our politicians.

But I'd still prefer the free market over a centralized, one plan for all, top down system run by a government entity. I believe that if people want this type of coverage, THEY should pay for it. It should not be a mandated coverage for all if we don't want it. The free market would handle that.

The example you cited earlier about paying taxes for schools is something that is legitimate for the betterment of society. But paying taxes at the federal level for public schools is wrong headed and violates the Constitution. That should be left to local municipalities where decisions are more easily affected by the citizens of that locale.

As far as Viagra goes, it should be covered if the insurance wants to provide it and it should be able to adjust the premium accordingly.

TxGoat

It would be nice if we could depend on the private sector, but when you have a for-profit entity trying to put a price on someone's health costs, guess who will most likely get the short end of the stick? If a free market solution was viable then you wouldn't see insane prices for a bottle of aspirin on your hospital bill at the end of your stay.

mike114

You hit the nail on the head, whether you meant to or not. We are no where near a free market when it comes to healthcare. Not even close.

A.Nonymous

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most healthcare companies cover these things already with a co-pay at the very least? So we're already paying for it. The issue is the feds forcing employers to provide healthcare. That's the problem. If employers didn't have to provide healthcare, then you can buy whatever you want on the free market.

Personally, I think the contraception debate is beyond barbaric. I feel like we're actually debating whether slavery should be legal. It's that type of debate.

If we let employers choose what their healthcare plans provide, then it becomes a really, really slippery slope. Some people don't believe in doctors at all. So any doctor's visits wouldn't be covered. I believe it's Mormon's who don't believe in blood transfusions. I could die or be saddled with so much debt that I'm bankrupted just because my employer doesn't cover it, but still be under the impression that I'm fine as I have health insurance. Thus, it becomes my responsibility to interview every employer about every single aspect of their health insurance coverage. Birth Control? Blood transfusions? Surgery? Where do you stand on dental care? What about sinus infections? Am I required to visit a faith healer first?

AntimonyER

I think you are on the other side of the aisle from me, but the first part of your argument is one we can both agree on. Employers should not be the sole provider of health insurance, like they are today (for the most part). However if they offer it, they absolutely should be able to choose what is in it. They are paying for it (or at least subsidizing it), its their right. Just like its your right to leave your job if you don't agree with that, or anything else they do. But if we made it fair in that individuals get the same tax treatment for insurance premiums that employers do, it would be much easier for a person to get their own, while still keeping their job.

I wish the media would be honest about what really started this discussion. It wasn't denying women birth control, it was forcing employers to pay for it against their religious tenets. And for all the demonization of insurance companies when Obamacare was being pushed through, talking about how they put profits over people, etc., its pretty rich for Obama to try to use the argument that insurance companies won't pass on the costs (PLUS a little extra for profit for themselves) for the birth control to the religious organizations, therefore making them pay for it. Anyone with half a brain and not blinded by pure partisanship knows his "accomodation" is a joke. Birth control is cheap (or free!), and widely available for everyone. Most insurance companies offer policies which include it already, the combination of all of this means there is NO denial of birth control in America, and there wasn't before this whole thing started. Stop making it about birth control, because its not.

As far as Rush calling that college girl a slut, it was stupid. But where was the mass media outrage over Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a c***? It would be one thing if the Dems were perfect in respecting all women, and were rightly expressing outrage over an attack on a woman, but its only because this woman was supporting their position! If its a conservative woman supporting the other side, eh, they don't deserve the same respect. Pure hypocrisy.

TxGoat

Currently it's their right to decide what coverage they purchase for their employees, but some policies are set up to allow for things such as Viagra while things such as birth control are not covered. It's more about equal access for men and women, not government forcing employers to provide something.

Look at it from this perspective, what if you worked at a mostly female facility that had only 1-2 males from a total of 50 or so people, and the employer decided that since most of her staff was female, she wasn't going to provide a men's restroom. If you were male and had to go to the restroom your options were to either hold it until you get home, or go to a local gas station (get docked pay for it) until you returned? I'm sure you would protest furiously, and more than likely ask the government to intervene on your behalf. This is the same access that the government is asking employers to provide for their employees.

Jon Stewart raised a good point on his show regarding this issue a few weeks back, in response to a Fox anchor who claimed that women are just acting like entitled brats. He showed footage of the same woman arguing for maternity leave and how she felt she should be entitled to spend time with her newborn without fear of losing her job. Could Rush Limbaugh call this woman a Slut as well? I mean they paid her to have sex too right? Granted, this woman is Rush's co-worker thus, calling her that might be kind of awkward in the hallways.


And I'm not sure I remember Bill Maher call Sarah Palin a C U Next Tuesday, but you have to remember that he's not sponsored by advertisers the way Rush Limbaugh is. A lot of sponsors are pulling advertisement from Limbaugh, where when Maher says something outlandish, he's a comedian that's on HBO, I don't think he really cares if he gets negative publicity.

A.Nonymous

I don't necessarily agree with that as it puts the onus on the employee to clarify every single thing about the policy BEFORE they even accept a job offer. An employer could decide that they just want to cover physicals, but don't want to cover sick visits. This way they can require a doctor's note from employees and thus discourage the misuse of sick time. You don't know this at the time of hire and go to the doctor when you're sick only to find out you're not covered.

At the end of the day, employers are not doctors (in most cases) and aren't actuaries and aren't qualified to choose what should and shouldn't be covered and to what extent it should be covered. I don't think employers should be required to provide health insurance. If they do provide it, then I think everything should be covered or, at the least, be required to be disclosed up front. I am assuming that if I come down with appendicitis I am covered. I should not be required to examine my policy or question my employer as to whether he/she believes in surgery or not.

I tend to agree with you on this. I'm puzzled why providing birth control is even controversial in the first place. The idea that ALL sex must be procreative is beyond archaic.

AntimonyER

Well it's viewed by the Catholic Church as making a decision about life. They feel it should be ENTIRELY up to God when new life is created. By taking birth control, you are usurping God's power in this regard. It is a very traditional belief that is clearly not shared by even most of their congregation, but it is their belief nonetheless. Who are we however to force them to pay for something that violates their beliefs, however archaic they may be. Especially something so cheap even at full price.

TxGoat

You can take it a step further and say that the whole practice of medicine is "usurping God's power".

A.Nonymous

Well, if I'm hit by a car and I go to the hospital, I'm making that decision as well. I fell off a ten foot ladder once. If I didn't get medical care, my left wrist would've never healed right (it was broken) and possibly would've become gangrenous. The cut above my eye required stitches and without them, I possibly would've bled significantly just from that gash. So my going to the ER extended my life. I would've been pissed if I got out of there and found myself with a six figure medical bill because my employer decided that falls shouldn't be covered for whatever reason.

OutofDate1980

No, it's about a religious hierarchy trying to have the government enforce said hierarchy's religious tenets on its members. Not the governments job.

TxGoat

What's funny about it though is that they can justify Viagra even though it's more of a recreational sex aid and contraception has been demonstrated to alleviate PMS symptoms in women. I've even heard some men try to justify that Viagra helps with cardiovascular health.

It's a shame that we can't give Rush Limbaugh (or any of the men that were called to congress to testify against birth control) hormone treatment just to let him live like a woman for a week. I'm sure his tune would change.

surgerush

Rush Limbaugh (and imo, religion in general) is a joke, whoever doesn't know this about him yet doesn't have a clue.

breadnatty08

I don't think anyone should worry about a slippery slope in this case. This is something that upwards of 98% of woman take in their lifetime. 98 friggin percent!! Name me any other medication, drug, supplement that 98% of woman take in their lifetime?
Family planning saves insurance companies plenty of money that subsidizing the price of birth control just plain makes sense.

AntimonyER

That's not what this is even about. Everyone who works for catholic institutions are free to use birth control to their hearts content. This is about making those institutions pay for it against their religious tenets. Not one employee is being denied one freedom by the church tenets. There is NO right to free birth control.

breadnatty08

There are still plenty of loopholes for them to avoid it. The health insurance companies would pay for it (granted, subsidized through the institution).
I guess the point is, are we opening up the ability of ANY religious institution the way to deny treatment because it is against their doctrine?

OutofDate1980

Stewart's take.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Gross - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 03/05/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

A.Nonymous

As I said, there are religions that don't approve of blood transfusions. I believe it's the Jehovah's Witnesses, but I could be wrong. Now, I have to ask ahead of time if my employer is a Jehovah's Witness or not when I apply for a job 'cuz if I'm in a car wreck, a blood transfusion may make the difference between life and death. There are people in my particular denomination who are right wing nuts and don't approve of doctors period. Now, as an employee, I must inquire of my employer as to his religious beliefs not just what my job duties are expected to be.

AndyLL

That's the way group policies work.

The combined payments of the group (which are invested) pay for the high health costs of the few.

I haven't been to a Dr for over 20 years but pay my premium month after month without complaining.

Why? Because I know if I come down with a serious (treatable) disease like cancer it will not bankrupt me.

In any case... free contraceptives save insruance companies money.

Pregnancies are expensive.

Heathcare of kids are expensive.

Do you realize that most group policies do not charge per kid... they change a family rate?

Preventative care lowers healthcare costs. That is why much of it is required under ObamaCare.

TxGoat

I think if it were left up to insurance companies, they'd charge extra for a woman's care since lets face it, women have to deal with more than men. And while men don't seek help until it's too late, generally speaking, that would probably cost more in the long run.

A.Nonymous

Let's be honest though, the cost of providing the pill is going to get passed on to consumer's. That's how it's designed. The health insurance company is not going to eat that cost (however big or small it may be) out of pocket.

TxGoat

Personally, I have a bigger problem with my money going into a pool that enables impotent males to get their "soldier" to "stand at attention" than to help alleviate some symptoms that make women miserable once a month. And I say that knowing that there's a possibility that as a male, after a certain age, my potency can be somewhat diminished. In a society where people define a man by his ability to get it up, I think Viagra is an unnecessary vanity. If Hugh Hefner can't get it up on his own then that means it's time to retire that thing even if it means his image goes as limp.

A.Nonymous

I would love to disagree with that, but can't. I guess if Hef is banging whatever Playmate he's currently married to and there are no condoms or pills involved, it's ok. Put a rubber on that thing and God is displeased I guess.

9to5cynic

Now, I'm not a religious person, but I do read into the practices a bit....

Could the argument be made that birth control and medicine are part of God's Plan? I mean, both things (medicine and birth control) are man-made, and an Omnipotent being would be able to stop or allow any such transgressions right?

That's all I was thinking.

Now, more on topic, I have to agree 'barbaric' is the word to describe this. It's pretty insane really. Wow. Should the government be dabbling in the affairs of businesses like this? I don't know. I mean, there are improvements that could be made, but those improvements could probably be made without government mandates. So I don't know. I think you'd need to test both ways and leave on as-is as the control group. But that's not possible yet .... (unless we're already in the matrix and we're just part of one group... ? )

__________________
Nandroid Backup Script|unanswered threads|BabyBlues Breast Cancer Pledge

TxGoat

Oh lord.....

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com


Along the same lines, in my state the "geniuses" have mandated that a woman is to be forced to watch a sonogram before any abortion is performed. My question would be, why not force the father to watch it as well? Why not force a man that doesn't pay child support to watch footage of their children? I'm guessing the double standard debate is going to be with us until at least November.

Frisco

+1.

It still amazes me that we're fighting that stuff all the way into the year 2012. I remember it coming up when I was in high school (mumble) years ago. The man must take responsibility at the very least financially. They were both dumb enough to get pregnant, not just the woman (not talking about rape, of course, that is not a woman being dumb, obviously).

__________________

breadnatty08

Haha, yeah I saw that video someone posted on FB. Pretty genius move if you ask me.
Totally agree with Frisco, it is insane that this is still an issue. I don't know if it's purely because it's an election year and it gets people riled up against the Dems, or if it's a Tea Party thing (which I'd think they'd be completely against seeing as it's gov't really getting into your "business").

Frisco

A few years ago we had a vote about abortion in an RN class. The class was the typical majority of female to male students: about 33 ladies and two guys (I keep hearing that more males are becoming nurses, but haven't really seen it first hand much).

Anyway, the question was simple: Is abortion good or bad. Verbal responses were encouraged.

"Good" won by 22 to 13.

Then came, "why?"

The responses reminded me, oddly, of the debate on handguns for personal protection/concealed carry. It was "good" to most because "it's our right," and it was "bad" to the others because it kills.

Later I was glad I had lunch off campus that day, because I heard that the "discussion" continued in the cafeteria.

AntimonyER

Abortion is strange because it is the only time those on the left don't side with life. Animals, trees, convicted murderers, guns, wars, they all proclaim that life, even inanimate life, is too precious, to kill or put in danger.

Frisco

I think that those on the so-called "left" view the choices made between a woman and her doctor as the issue, and none of the government's business (beyond the state issued credentials of the doctor), and not the moral issue of ending a pregnancy. That moral issue is in the debate because it's seen by the so-called "right" as the real issue, choice be damned, free country or not.

Meanwhile, the so-called "pro-lifers" have the dichotomy of being in favor of the killing of a captured, incarcerated criminal, all the while sporting "pro-life" as their high-held, screaming banner. The are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion, but the name "pro-life," a lie, is a great PR banner as opposed to "pro-some life," I suppose.

OutofDate1980

"A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree."

Judith Jarvis Thomson. "A Defense of Abortion". Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971)

Frisco

It sure seemed like a person to us, when we first found out that my wife was pregnant.

That moment was the beginning of quite a loving relationship between us and the child.

But we do understand that our feelings about that should not be forced on other women, other couples. That's where we part company with the anti-abortion folks.

A.Nonymous

To be fair, the pro-choice side is the same way. What? You don't think people should be able to make choices? What are you some kind of communist? There is plenty of emotional rhetoric built in the names of both groups.

Frisco

Yes, and I've always found something else interesting and telling:

Both on polarized sides of that issue have something important in common (besides both of them fancying themselves Great Crusaders): healthcare rights activists (mostly on the "left") want to be able to make a choice to kill something and so do death penalty activists (mostly on the "right").

OutofDate1980

The courts do not support your position, once you enter into the public forum, you must abide by the same rules as everybody else.

United States v. Lee, 1982, an employer must pay Social Security and unemployment taxes despite a religious objection.

Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 1985, religious organizations must pay their workers minimum wages despite a religious protest.

Employment Division v. Smith, 1990, laws that apply generally and do not single out religious groups may be upheld even if they intrude on religious practices.

A.Nonymous

We're talking about apples and oranges though. The death penalty deals with adults who have made the choice to take a life and have been convicted by a jury of doing so. Abortion deals with an unborn human who has done nothing at all up to that point except exist.

Frisco

That's all true, but it's what they have in common that I'm talking about, not what the differences are.

To extend your analogy, apples and oranges have in common that they're both edible fruit. Fetuses and convicted criminals are both living things that some people want to have the right to kill and that some other people want to prevent from being killed.

But the point of "apples and oranges" is not what they have in common, but what's different, so why compare them? In the case of abortion and the death penalty we compare them because of that other thing that they both have in common: Those aforementioned people who want to kill them.

copestag

which conveniently brings us back to topic...... why is the left so gung ho about forcing private entities to pay for someone elses "choices made between a woman and her doctor" and "none of the government's business"

TxGoat

Not entirely back on topic, the topic is why is Viagra acceptable to cover but Birth Control coverage not?

But, I don't really care if the thread ventures elsewhere. I think you have to let the threads run their own course. I don't understand it when the mods try to control the focus of the conversation, it's a conversation for crying out loud. But I digress.....

9to5cynic

You know, wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare Birth Control and condoms? Just thinking out loud here.

And what about mountain dew? I'm sure we've all heard that large quantities of mountain dew can lower sperm count, so would that also be morally 'negative'?

I suppose this actually isn't 100% on topic, because this topic was in response to a certain talk show guy who's lost a boat load of sponsors.

Anyone else find it weird that Bill Maher is taking his defense in regards to the advertising leaving him? I sure did. *shrugs*