Contraception and Viagra, why one but not the other?


  1. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    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.

    Advertisement
  2. breadnatty08

    breadnatty08 pain rustique VIP Member

    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.
  3. mike114

    mike114 Well-Known Member

    The question is, who do you believe should pay for it?
  4. breadnatty08

    breadnatty08 pain rustique VIP Member

    The insurance companies. Why Limbaugh and O'Rielly honestly think it's paid for with tax dollars is beyond me.
  5. mike114

    mike114 Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    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.
  7. mike114

    mike114 Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    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.
  9. mike114

    mike114 Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    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?
  11. mike114

    mike114 Well-Known Member

    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.
  12. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest


    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.
  13. mike114

    mike114 Well-Known Member

    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.
  14. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    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?
  15. AntimonyER

    AntimonyER AF Addict VIP Member

    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.
  16. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest


    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.
  17. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. AntimonyER

    AntimonyER AF Addict VIP Member

    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.
  19. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest


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

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    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.
  21. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    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.
  22. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest


    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.
  23. surgerush

    surgerush Well-Known Member

    Rush Limbaugh (and imo, religion in general) is a joke, whoever doesn't know this about him yet doesn't have a clue.
  24. breadnatty08

    breadnatty08 pain rustique VIP Member

    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.
  25. AntimonyER

    AntimonyER AF Addict VIP Member

    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.

Share This Page