McCain can't answer simple question

[Ravi]

"I certainly do not want to discuss that issue," McCain says at the opening.
"I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer," he adds after a long pause.


For McCain, an uncomfortable question about Viagra funding - On Politics - USATODAY.com

 

[Taco]

keyword:

WorkingGroups

(ok, 2)

But still.

The candidates, are figureheads.

Both of em.

 

[Ravi]

But as the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America was happy to point out, McCain twice voted against measures that would have required insurance companies to cover birth control -- in 2003 and 2005.

The Republican said Wednesday that he did not recall those votes. "It's something that I had not thought much about," he added.

Carly Fiorina's fuzzy McCain-speak - Los Angeles Times

 

[editec]

That was the right anwer.

People try to set these guys up with hypothetical questions about policies which are completely inappropriate.

More partisan nonsense which inevitably hurts us all because while they're wasting everyone's time, the important issues are NOT being discussed.

Good for McCain for blowing that nitwit off, says I.

 

[jillian]

That was the right anwer.

People try to set these guys up with hypothetical questions about policies which are completely inappropriate.

More partisan nonsense which inevitably hurts us all because while they're wasting everyone's time, the important issues are NOT being discussed.

Good for McCain for blowing that nitwit off, says I.

It wasn't a hypothetical question. Nor do I think it's particularly partisan. It's more of a gender discrimination issue, actually. Viagra is a covered drug... birth control pills aren't. Don't you think a person who wants to be president should be able to answer why that's the case?

The real answer is the religious right doesn't like birth control pills same as they don't like Acutane so getting Acutane is, according to my dermatoligist friend, an incredible nightmare.

 

[Ravi]

It wasn't a hypothetical question. Nor do I think it's particularly partisan. It's more of a gender discrimination issue, actually. Viagra is a covered drug... birth control pills aren't. Don't you think a person who wants to be president should be able to answer why that's the case?

The real answer is the religious right doesn't like birth control pills same as they don't like Acutane so getting Acutane is, according to my dermatoligist friend, an incredible nightmare.

I agree with you, I do think this is an important issue.

But why don't they like Acutane?

 

[AllieBaba]

It wasn't a hypothetical question. Nor do I think it's particularly partisan. It's more of a gender discrimination issue, actually. Viagra is a covered drug... birth control pills aren't. Don't you think a person who wants to be president should be able to answer why that's the case?

The real answer is the religious right doesn't like birth control pills same as they don't like Acutane so getting Acutane is, according to my dermatoligist friend, an incredible nightmare.

That's the first I've ever heard that birth control isn't covered. I've never run across an insurance plan that didn't cover it, and you can get free birth control in any women's clinic..and it is certainly covered by HMOs.

 

[KMAN]

I have one of the worst healthcare providers in the country Megahealth and they cover birth control pills... I would get some new insurance if you need them and aren't currently covered. That's one good thing about a non-universal healthcare, if something is not covered you can change to one that does cover it. Good Luck.

 

[AllieBaba]

Or you can just walk into any family planning clinic and get a year's supply. Not to mention the condons they give out like party favors.

 

[manifold]

Did McCain ever vote to require insurance companies to cover Viagra?

Perhaps he doesn't think either should be required.

 

[frazzledgear]

"I certainly do not want to discuss that issue," McCain says at the opening.
"I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer," he adds after a long pause.


For McCain, an uncomfortable question about Viagra funding - On Politics - USATODAY.com

What is so "simple" about that question if a candidate has not even considered his/her position on a particular question? Not as if Viagra is one of the biggest issues voters are concerned about right now, is it?

If a candidate is asked a question for which he has not yet come to form his own position -then do you want him to just wing it off the top of his head only to see him change his mind once further investigation leads him to conclude something different? Then he looks like a waffling idiot and gets attacked yet again.

Personally, I would tell McCain to take a stand here though. YES its fair for health insurance to cover Viagra but not cover birth control pills. Erectile dysfunction is a very real medical condition -one that often results from numerous diseases including but not limited to diabetes, high blood pressure, certain cardiac and pulmonary diseases, as a well known side effect of surgery for prostate cancer and many neurological conditions ranging from multiple sclerosis to disc disease with spinal cord compression -many of which rob an individual of a normal life bit by bit. Erectile dysfunction is often the result of the very first bit of a normal life people with these medical diseases lose and for many of these diseases, it is not only lost forever, it is inevitably followed by further losses to a normal life.

The only effective option to treat this very real consequence of numerous medical illnesses was once limited to surgery. The surgery -which is a drastic step - has always been covered by health insurance. Not because it is a MAN suffering that condition but because it is a part of a NORMAL life that has been lost as a consequence of disease. If a woman suffers a condition that interferes with her ability to have a normal sex life -available medication, treatment and even surgery are also covered as well. There are covered treatments, therapies, medications, surgeries available to individuals when it is another part of a NORMAL life that has been sacrificed to some disease or medical condition -but feminists somehow object to having treatment covered by insurance if it is a MAN and he loses THIS part of a normal life? Prescription medication that can be effective enough to allow the individual to avoid surgery should also be covered. It is not only less expensive, but the medication poses far less risk to the individual than surgery when his health has already been compromised by illness in the first place.

The DESIRE to want to avoid pregnancy is NOT a medical condition whatsoever. I have a hard time believing anyone in their right mind would argue that unless a woman can have sex without concern for pregnancy by the SPECIFIC means of her choice paid for with drug insurance -a man suffering the loss of his sex life due to medical disease shouldn't be able to have sex at all and have HIS prescription medication to treat that condition denied by insurance companies. Feminists despise men -and don't kid yourselves they don't. Should make a normal person want to puke for what feminists are implying here -and exactly how little value they really place on the ability of a MAN to even experience normal function and a normal life.

For feminists to insist that a prescription medication that helps restore a NORMAL function that was lost as a result of disease is fully comparable to a woman's personal desire to want to avoid pregnancy by the specific means of her CHOICE and therefore the first should not be covered by insurance unless the latter is -is both sick and vicious. And anyone who falls for that argument is either stupid or believes men to be second class citizens too who really should lose the ability to even HAVE sex because of disease unless a woman gets her personal WHIM satisfied of having drug insurance pay for the specific means of birth control of her CHOICE.

The fact that doctors have been loosely prescribing this medication, often to men who do not actually suffer from erectile dysfunction -is an issue for insurance companies who have the ability to set strict guidelines for what kind of testing is required before first prescribing it. But their failure to do so still doesn't turn this into an issue for feminists to turn around and insist that a woman's desire to avoid pregnancy by the specific means of her CHOICE is the equivalent of a man who lost the ability to experience a normal sex life entirely as the result of a medical condition or illness.

 

[Chris]

If they don't pay for the Viagra, they won't need the birth control.

Just sayin.........

 

[Jon]

If you can't get free birth control, you obviously don't want it. There are numerous ways to get it free.

And, if you don't want to get pregnant and can't get free birth control, keep your fucking legs crossed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yup, my daughter got free birth control with out even telling us. The County provided it to her.

 

[Ravi]

What is so "simple" about that question if a candidate has not even considered his/her position on a particular question? Not as if Viagra is one of the biggest issues voters are concerned about right now, is it?

If a candidate is asked a question for which he has not yet come to form his own position -then do you want him to just wing it off the top of his head only to see him change his mind once further investigation leads him to conclude something different? Then he looks like a waffling idiot and gets attacked yet again.

Personally, I would tell McCain to take a stand here though. YES its fair for health insurance to cover Viagra but not cover birth control pills. Erectile dysfunction is a very real medical condition -one that often results from numerous diseases including but not limited to diabetes, high blood pressure, certain cardiac and pulmonary diseases, as a well known side effect of surgery for prostate cancer and many neurological conditions ranging from multiple sclerosis to disc disease with spinal cord compression -many of which rob an individual of a normal life bit by bit. Erectile dysfunction is often the result of the very first bit of a normal life people with these medical diseases lose and for many of these diseases, it is not only lost forever, it is inevitably followed by further losses to a normal life.

The only effective option to treat this very real consequence of numerous medical illnesses was once limited to surgery. The surgery -which is a drastic step - has always been covered by health insurance. Not because it is a MAN suffering that condition but because it is a part of a NORMAL life that has been lost as a consequence of disease. If a woman suffers a condition that interferes with her ability to have a normal sex life -available medication, treatment and even surgery are also covered as well. There are covered treatments, therapies, medications, surgeries available to individuals when it is another part of a NORMAL life that has been sacrificed to some disease or medical condition -but feminists somehow object to having treatment covered by insurance if it is a MAN and he loses THIS part of a normal life? Prescription medication that can be effective enough to allow the individual to avoid surgery should also be covered. It is not only less expensive, but the medication poses far less risk to the individual than surgery when his health has already been compromised by illness in the first place.

The DESIRE to want to avoid pregnancy is NOT a medical condition whatsoever. I have a hard time believing anyone in their right mind would argue that unless a woman can have sex without concern for pregnancy by the SPECIFIC means of her choice paid for with drug insurance -a man suffering the loss of his sex life due to medical disease shouldn't be able to have sex at all and have HIS prescription medication to treat that condition denied by insurance companies. Feminists despise men -and don't kid yourselves they don't. Should make a normal person want to puke for what feminists are implying here -and exactly how little value they really place on the ability of a MAN to even experience normal function and a normal life.

For feminists to insist that a prescription medication that helps restore a NORMAL function that was lost as a result of disease is fully comparable to a woman's personal desire to want to avoid pregnancy by the specific means of her CHOICE and therefore the first should not be covered by insurance unless the latter is -is both sick and vicious. And anyone who falls for that argument is either stupid or believes men to be second class citizens too who really should lose the ability to even HAVE sex because of disease unless a woman gets her personal WHIM satisfied of having drug insurance pay for the specific means of birth control of her CHOICE.

The fact that doctors have been loosely prescribing this medication, often to men who do not actually suffer from erectile dysfunction -is an issue for insurance companies who have the ability to set strict guidelines for what kind of testing is required before first prescribing it. But their failure to do so still doesn't turn this into an issue for feminists to turn around and insist that a woman's desire to avoid pregnancy by the specific means of her CHOICE is the equivalent of a man who lost the ability to experience a normal sex life entirely as the result of a medical condition or illness.

Bitter, much?

 

[Gem]

I gotta say, I agree completely with his adviser...it IS unfair for a provider to cover a man's Viagra but not a woman's birth control pill...

and I still say, who give's a hoot?

So McCain hasn't honed his fine-tuned policy on whether private health-insurance companies should be required to cover any or all medications that a customer wants - oh, no! Obviously this points to him being woefully under-qualified to be President!

Excuse my sarcasm, but come on - if anything, I'm impressed that McCain didn't do what most politicians would have done, and quickly give a politically correct blow-off answer, "I think that a woman has an absolute right to receive equal healthcare under her plan - and if a man is getting a Viagra prescription covered it should be a given that a woman can get her birth control covered..." McCain at least had the guts to eventually pony up to the fact that he didn't know what he wanted to say about it and therefore wouldn't say anything about it.

Additionally, I have had 7 insurance plans in my life - including the 3 I had when I was still in college and being covered by my parents. 6 of those 7 covered my birth control prescription - no questions asked. The 7th didn't, but covered several other types of birth control pill - I consulted my doctor and switched prescriptions. Bottom line, I would be fascinated to learn just how many women are affected by this problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"I certainly do not want to discuss that issue," McCain says at the opening.
"I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer," he adds after a long pause.

So... what's wrong with the answer he gave?

You'd rather he try to discuss an issue he doesn't know enough about to discuss?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So... what's wrong with the answer he gave?

You'd rather he try to discuss an issue he doesn't know enough about to discuss?

Ya it isn't like Obama answers much of ANYTHING. First the fawning press doesn't ask him much and when someone does ask a hard question it gets twisted into somehow being about race and then gets called racism.

 

[editec]

It wasn't a hypothetical question. Nor do I think it's particularly partisan. It's more of a gender discrimination issue, actually.

Yes it is, I quite agree

And it is a gender descrimination issue so far down on the totem of importance to the American people as to make asking the question to a Presdiential candidate somewhat silly.

Viagra is a covered drug... birth control pills aren't. Don't you think a person who wants to be president should be able to answer why that's the case?

No, I don't. No more than I expect the future leader of GM to have a handle on whether or not the bathrooms at the plants are equally clean.

While I agree with you that this is an issue of gender justice, it is simply not important enough to expect each candidate to know much about it or to have a position about it on the tip of his tongue.

The real answer is the religious right doesn't like birth control pills same as they don't like Acutane so getting Acutane is, according to my dermatoligist friend, an incredible nightmare.

Yes, quite true.

The religious right only marginally hates women more than they hate people who have sex. They are jealous, hateful, idiots.

And bringing issues that near and dear to their blacken wizzard little itiotic hearts during the campiagn empowers THEM.

Stick tyo issues that truly are effecting all of us, and McCain will look like a dmaned fool to MOST americans.

Turn this into a war of the liberal agenda V the BIBLETHUMPERs and McCain will get support.

Do you get it now, Jillian?

 

[Ravi]

sigh

Shog has the same attitude.

If you see something you perceive as an injustice, you are supposed to keep quite about it because the other side might use it against you? Must we wait until Dems are in total control to feel free to point out mistreatment?