Contraception is a lifestyle choice? But Viagra is for a "medical condition"?

[Cecilie1200]

If against birth control for religious reasons, but don't keep the Sabbath, shut up. You're going to hell too.

I must have missed the part where God died and you were promoted to replace Him. You'd have thought someone would have sent me a memo, or at least posted an obituary, huh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are speaking to someone who ended up in hospital with severe pain, had surgery to treat endometriosis, suffered with dizzy spells and fainted several times and who was on birth control for 7 ******* years to control it.

Don't you give me your sarcastic shit, *****. You have no ******* idea what you are talking about, so shut your mouth.

Oh, and I have also not have sex. But keep believing I use birth control to prevent pregnancy, won't you.

So, you agree that having birth control pills and Viagra for medical conditions is okay? Would you then agree if it is for recreational use, so to speak, it then the individuals should use their own money to buy it?

No. If one is free, both should be free. Fair is fair.

Neither one of them should be "free" - which translates to "paid for by someone else". Maintenance and upkeep on a person's genitals are the financial responsibility of that person, not anyone else.

 

[Noomi]

You are such a dumb *****, I swear. You must have been dropped on the head as a baby.

 

[Politico]

You are speaking to someone who ended up in hospital with severe pain, had surgery to treat endometriosis, suffered with dizzy spells and fainted several times and who was on birth control for 7 ******* years to control it.

Don't you give me your sarcastic shit, *****. You have no ******* idea what you are talking about, so shut your mouth.

Oh, and I have also not have sex. But keep believing I use birth control to prevent pregnancy, won't you.

So, you agree that having birth control pills and Viagra for medical conditions is okay? Would you then agree if it is for recreational use, so to speak, it then the individuals should use their own money to buy it?

No. If one is free, both should be free. Fair is fair.

Wrong. BC pills have been shown to be beneficial in certain medical conditions. Boner pills are taken by people who are trying to bypass them.

 

[DGS49]

Neither BC pills nor Viagra should be covered by health insurance.

Insurance is an indemnity contract we freely inter into when we want to protect ourselves financially from a catastrophe. We buy car insurance (comprehensive and collision) because if our car is destroyed or stolen, we cannot afford to replace it out of our pocket. We buy fire insurance because if our house is seriously damaged or destroyed by fire, we cannot afford to repair or replace it out of pocket.

Nobody sells (or buys) insurance that pays to change the oil in your car, or replace the tires when they wear out. These are routine expenses which we "self-insure." Same for replacing your furnace, water heater, or roof. You don't buy insurance for those things, even though there is a significant cost when they occur.

Health insurance is SUPPOSED to cover SIGNIFICANT costs that you cannot afford to "self-insure." It should be for times when you have a serious injury or disease, or a condition that requires extraordinarily expensive treatments or medicine (say, over a threshhold). The idea the health insurance should cover office visits or normal prescription medication is not only perverse but destructive. It is destructive because it takes those things out of the free marketplace, thus people no longer care what they cost, and the providers know they can charge exhorbitant amounts for the meds or services, and nobody will complain.

And in the case of BP pills (as required by O'care), it is a matter of government bureaucrats in Washington playing God with peoples' lives, dictating from their white castles that, in essence, pregnancy is a disease to be avoided, and "treated" (with abortion) when it occurs.

MEDICAID is another story, and providing BC pills for people on MEDICAID who want them is a policy decision that I don't feel strongly about one way or another, but compelling insurance carriers to pay for BC pills or Viagra, that's bullshit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are such a dumb *****, I swear. You must have been dropped on the head as a baby.

And yet I'm still smarter than you, as evidenced by the fact that I know there's more to the world than myself.

 

[Borillar]

Neither BC pills nor Viagra should be covered by health insurance.

Insurance is an indemnity contract we freely inter into when we want to protect ourselves financially from a catastrophe. We buy car insurance (comprehensive and collision) because if our car is destroyed or stolen, we cannot afford to replace it out of our pocket. We buy fire insurance because if our house is seriously damaged or destroyed by fire, we cannot afford to repair or replace it out of pocket.

Nobody sells (or buys) insurance that pays to change the oil in your car, or replace the tires when they wear out. These are routine expenses which we "self-insure." Same for replacing your furnace, water heater, or roof. You don't buy insurance for those things, even though there is a significant cost when they occur.

Health insurance is SUPPOSED to cover SIGNIFICANT costs that you cannot afford to "self-insure." It should be for times when you have a serious injury or disease, or a condition that requires extraordinarily expensive treatments or medicine (say, over a threshhold). The idea the health insurance should cover office visits or normal prescription medication is not only perverse but destructive. It is destructive because it takes those things out of the free marketplace, thus people no longer care what they cost, and the providers know they can charge exhorbitant amounts for the meds or services, and nobody will complain.

And in the case of BP pills (as required by O'care), it is a matter of government bureaucrats in Washington playing God with peoples' lives, dictating from their white castles that, in essence, pregnancy is a disease to be avoided, and "treated" (with abortion) when it occurs.

MEDICAID is another story, and providing BC pills for people on MEDICAID who want them is a policy decision that I don't feel strongly about one way or another, but compelling insurance carriers to pay for BC pills or Viagra, that's bullshit.

The government is probably being pragmatic here. What is cheaper to pay for - birth control or child birth, WIC, AFDC, etc.? Birth control should be a part of any basic medical care package. BC drugs are not only used for that purpose. My daughter had to take them for a pituitary gland problem. If Catholics or other religious groups have some crazy opposition to birth control, nobody is forcing them to take the pills.

 

[thanatos144]

Neither BC pills nor Viagra should be covered by health insurance.

Insurance is an indemnity contract we freely inter into when we want to protect ourselves financially from a catastrophe. We buy car insurance (comprehensive and collision) because if our car is destroyed or stolen, we cannot afford to replace it out of our pocket. We buy fire insurance because if our house is seriously damaged or destroyed by fire, we cannot afford to repair or replace it out of pocket.

Nobody sells (or buys) insurance that pays to change the oil in your car, or replace the tires when they wear out. These are routine expenses which we "self-insure." Same for replacing your furnace, water heater, or roof. You don't buy insurance for those things, even though there is a significant cost when they occur.

Health insurance is SUPPOSED to cover SIGNIFICANT costs that you cannot afford to "self-insure." It should be for times when you have a serious injury or disease, or a condition that requires extraordinarily expensive treatments or medicine (say, over a threshhold). The idea the health insurance should cover office visits or normal prescription medication is not only perverse but destructive. It is destructive because it takes those things out of the free marketplace, thus people no longer care what they cost, and the providers know they can charge exhorbitant amounts for the meds or services, and nobody will complain.

And in the case of BP pills (as required by O'care), it is a matter of government bureaucrats in Washington playing God with peoples' lives, dictating from their white castles that, in essence, pregnancy is a disease to be avoided, and "treated" (with abortion) when it occurs.

MEDICAID is another story, and providing BC pills for people on MEDICAID who want them is a policy decision that I don't feel strongly about one way or another, but compelling insurance carriers to pay for BC pills or Viagra, that's bullshit.

The government is probably being pragmatic here. What is cheaper to pay for - birth control or child birth, WIC, AFDC, etc.? Birth control should be a part of any basic medical care package. BC drugs are not only used for that purpose. My daughter had to take them for a pituitary gland problem. If Catholics or other religious groups have some crazy opposition to birth control, nobody is forcing them to take the pills.

It isnt the governments money!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Neither BC pills nor Viagra should be covered by health insurance.

Insurance is an indemnity contract we freely inter into when we want to protect ourselves financially from a catastrophe. We buy car insurance (comprehensive and collision) because if our car is destroyed or stolen, we cannot afford to replace it out of our pocket. We buy fire insurance because if our house is seriously damaged or destroyed by fire, we cannot afford to repair or replace it out of pocket.

Nobody sells (or buys) insurance that pays to change the oil in your car, or replace the tires when they wear out. These are routine expenses which we "self-insure." Same for replacing your furnace, water heater, or roof. You don't buy insurance for those things, even though there is a significant cost when they occur.

Health insurance is SUPPOSED to cover SIGNIFICANT costs that you cannot afford to "self-insure." It should be for times when you have a serious injury or disease, or a condition that requires extraordinarily expensive treatments or medicine (say, over a threshhold). The idea the health insurance should cover office visits or normal prescription medication is not only perverse but destructive. It is destructive because it takes those things out of the free marketplace, thus people no longer care what they cost, and the providers know they can charge exhorbitant amounts for the meds or services, and nobody will complain.

And in the case of BP pills (as required by O'care), it is a matter of government bureaucrats in Washington playing God with peoples' lives, dictating from their white castles that, in essence, pregnancy is a disease to be avoided, and "treated" (with abortion) when it occurs.

MEDICAID is another story, and providing BC pills for people on MEDICAID who want them is a policy decision that I don't feel strongly about one way or another, but compelling insurance carriers to pay for BC pills or Viagra, that's bullshit.

The government is probably being pragmatic here. What is cheaper to pay for - birth control or child birth, WIC, AFDC, etc.? Birth control should be a part of any basic medical care package. BC drugs are not only used for that purpose. My daughter had to take them for a pituitary gland problem. If Catholics or other religious groups have some crazy opposition to birth control, nobody is forcing them to take the pills.

It isnt the governments money!

Nor is it their job to be "pragmatic" about any of this.

 

[DGS49]

If it were MY money - and arguably it is - I would not only pay for birth control pills for women on MEDICAID, I would encourage them to take 'em.

 

[initforme]

I really don't see anything wrong with someone paying for their birth control. To be critical of a married woman that uses birth control because she made the courageous, brave choice to NOT have children is truly stupid and of a warped, pathetic mindset. I applaud those who chose not to have kids because they don't want to take the time to raise them. Its a choice and a smart one if kids are not wanted. Very brave.

 

[HenryBHough]

Gotta agree that paying for some slut's birth control is a sound societal investment.

OTOH, hard to accept that government can command devout members of a religion that opposes birth control pay for it. That said, a member of that faith should not be allowed to get any government handouts for birthing a child that could have been prevented. Let their church pick up that tab.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Viagra Is For A Medical Condition, Birth Control Is A "Lifestyle Choice"

Can this distinction really be made with a straight face? Why?

Yes, birth control is for promiscuous women. Viagra is for men who can't get it up.

Isn't birth control for having sex for reasons other than making a woman pregnant...

which, in case you're not aware, is 99% of sexual intercourse.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If it were MY money - and arguably it is - I would not only pay for birth control pills for women on MEDICAID, I would encourage them to take 'em.

Feel free to take the portion of it that's yours and buy all the birth control pills to give away that you like. Just so long as I get my portion to do with as I choose.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I really don't see anything wrong with someone paying for their birth control. To be critical of a married woman that uses birth control because she made the courageous, brave choice to NOT have children is truly stupid and of a warped, pathetic mindset. I applaud those who chose not to have kids because they don't want to take the time to raise them. Its a choice and a smart one if kids are not wanted. Very brave.

Please show me anywhere on this board that anyone has "been critical of a married woman . . ." yada yada.

 

[cutter]

Viagra Is For A Medical Condition, Birth Control Is A "Lifestyle Choice"

Can this distinction really be made with a straight face? Why?

It's only a medical condition because you need a prescription to get it. Make it over the counter then anyone that wants it can buy it just like birth control.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Viagra Is For A Medical Condition, Birth Control Is A "Lifestyle Choice"

Can this distinction really be made with a straight face? Why?

It's only a medical condition because you need a prescription to get it. Make it over the counter then anyone that wants it can buy it just like birth control.

Thanks for sharing, Dr. Schweitzer. I'm so glad to know that my allergies and colds aren't medical conditions because the medicines that threat them are sold over-the-counter.

Now please shut up with this ignorant bullshit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What this really comes down to is that lefties just don't have the courage of their convictions. They can't bear the idea that anyone might ever possibly criticize or find fault with them, so they have to redefine the world to make themselves into helpless victims who had no choice in any matter at any time. God forbid they just say, "That's right, I made this decision, it was the right one for me, **** you if you don't like it". Therefore, to them, just the act of calling something a choice is, in itself, a criticism.

 

[emilynghiem]

Viagra Is For A Medical Condition, Birth Control Is A "Lifestyle Choice"

Can this distinction really be made with a straight face? Why?

And marijuana is for medical use. Yes in some cases, but not the majority of the demand.

Same with some of these hormone prescriptions.
In some cases, yes, these are only for medical conditions and treatments.
But the majority of usage is optional and not medically required.

NOTE: If you don't want to have to explain or provide information on any of this,
then DON'T USE GOVERNMENT FOR HEALTH CARE POLICIES AND PAYMENTS.

KEEP IT PRIVATE AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN YOUR USAGE TO ANYONE.

this tells me it's long overdue we need to separate policies and funding by party.
so if party members want to pay for these things without a hassle, they have
a centralized system for all members to pay into to cover whatever they want.

that's a lot simpler than fighting prolife advocate on any public funding or
authority that touches any policy on abortion, sex, gay marriage, etc.

 

[emilynghiem]

What this really comes down to is that lefties just don't have the courage of their convictions. They can't bear the idea that anyone might ever possibly criticize or find fault with them, so they have to redefine the world to make themselves into helpless victims who had no choice in any matter at any time. God forbid they just say, "That's right, I made this decision, it was the right one for me, **** you if you don't like it". Therefore, to them, just the act of calling something a choice is, in itself, a criticism.

radio host Sam Malone said it best on the air the other day.
He said there was nothing wrong with liberals forming their own groups and doing things their way. The problem is they want to take over other people's groups that were built on certain principles. So it ends up destroying them.

When I ask prochoice, singlepayer or ACA advocates about paying for this program themselves, they have no concept.

The other groups have their own churches and programs they build and fund themselves so they don't need govt to do that.

People who don't have connections with their own businesses, churches, schools, etc. end up relying on the govt for that. so they keep pushing their agenda through there as the public default.

I still believe they should push for these programs through the Democrat Party. that way Democrats who solicit those votes are responsible for creating programs to support them.
if you buy those votes, you pay for those members.

So this would give incentive to teach independence and sustainable education and health care. Not depending on others, or the party cannot cover the costs of what they promise!

Can you name any organization that creates a policy or program that depends on the members of other organizations to pay for?

That is what we allow parties to do. So we should insist they push and pay for their own programs and keep these out of govt.