response 220 of 526:

Feb 28 18:10 UTC 2006

Point taken.

response 222 of 526:

Feb 28 18:17 UTC 2006

I am not required to pay extra for health insurance that covers things like
birth control and pregnancy.  All the above comments seem to assume that
health insurance is free.

Since when has sex been a medical necessity?

response 224 of 526:

Feb 28 18:46 UTC 2006

Re #221, Condoms can be reimbursed with pre-tax dollars if you have a
flexible spending account.  It's not quite the same thing but it has a
similar effect.

Re #222, I think most people would consider sex to be a "major life
function."

response 226 of 526:

Feb 28 19:06 UTC 2006

Part of the issue is the type of hormonal birth control. Some
brands/versions work better than others. My insurance covers the generic
brand of Alesse as a lowest tier, Mircette as a second tier and Desogen
as a third tier. In my particular case- Alesse gave me migraines, so I
can't take it. Mircette caused massive mood swings and depression.
Desogen worked the best, but it too had it's negative side effects.
However, at $30 a month? Every month? I couldn't afford it. 

Those are pretty much the only three that I saw covered. There are at
least 15 more (Ortho, Ortho Tri-cyclen, Ortho-Low, Yasmin, and on and
on) and some are monophasic, others not. Some work for a woman, some
don't. Yet with my insurance I only have three options.

response 228 of 526:

Feb 28 20:23 UTC 2006

liberal rabid attacks.  right nate.

fallwell
roberston 
rove
o'reilley
hannity
drudge
savage
coulter
the cato institute
the birch society
operation rescue (randall terry supports terrorists)
ralph *gamblin money* reed
jack *indians are troglodytes* abramoff
dick *shotgun halliburton 5 deferments* cheney
gw *awol nepotism* bush
alan *i hate my gay hedonist daughter* keyes
arnold *i'll call them girlymen and hope that they don't realize 
that i went awol from the austrian military* schwartzenegger

bunch of liberal rabid attack dogs, eh?

here's an old nazi trick for you...accuse the otherside 
(liberals) of doing the things of which YOU are guilty.


nice try.

response 230 of 526:

Feb 28 21:06 UTC 2006

Ok, I don't see how listing a bunch of rightwing nutjobs has any 
relevance to how people on gun-control forums treat visitors who have 
opposing viewpoints. I contrasted how liberals treated such visitors 
with how conservatives treated other visitors. This was intended to 
show my reluctance to believe pro-choice liberals would be accepting of 
people with opposing viewpoints. 

But, if you take that as "mindless hate", then be my guest. By the way, 
you people have done a fantastic job at proving me wrong too. Calling 
me a nazi, hypocritical, and whatever else, without even arguing the 
points being made (or in some cases, even reading the entire post).

response 232 of 526:

Feb 28 21:45 UTC 2006

I don't and I disagree with you on stuff.  I enjoy your contribution.  But
if youwant me to call you a hypocritical nazi, well, you'll have to ask
*really* nicely.

response 234 of 526:

Feb 28 22:04 UTC 2006

...Which just shows what an idiot you are (Nathan).

response 236 of 526:

Feb 28 22:28 UTC 2006

Thats funny Jeff, I have yet to see your insightfull opinion on the 
matter. No, all you do is make silly jokes about conservatives and 
republicans, call people names, and then when they call you on it you 
can't be found.

At least I have some respect for happyboy's sarcasm because he backs 
it up. You just come into an item, drop your stink, and then leave.

response 238 of 526:

Feb 28 22:41 UTC 2006

hey! i guess i WAS implying that you are a nazi, nate!

oops!

response 240 of 526:

Mar 1 01:50 UTC 2006

resp:216 The reason I see whole Viagra/Pill thing as relevant is that I
think it illustrates our culture's different views on male and female
sexuality. Male sexual freedom is to be encouraged while female sexual
freedom is not. I might be able to buy the idea the ED is a disease but
pregnancy is not point except that hormonal birth control pills are
often used to treat medical conditions and are not only used to prevent
pregnancy. While it is true that poor women can get BCP for free, that
is mostly a result of the work of feminists who have gone to great
effort to make it so because reproductive freedom makes a huge
difference in women's lives. That and because medicaid covers it in a
lot of states which makes since since medicaid has a pretty big
incentive to cover it. 

Now, if it is really true that insurance companies are really dropping
coverage for Viagra, that is a stong point in favor of the idea that the
Viagra/BPC comparison might not be as meaningful as some people see it.
 Even so, it is telling that so many right to life groups are against
birth control methods but no one seems to worry too much about drugs
like viagra.  

response 242 of 526:

Mar 1 04:12 UTC 2006

Well, you got me curious, so I checked the policy offered by my own
company.  It covers all forms of non-OTC contraception (the pill, IUD,
Norplant, vasectomy, tubal ligation) but sexual dysfunction is
specifically not covered.  No coverage for Viagra or the like.
Psychotherapy is covered for pretty much any reason except for sexual
problems; likewise with seeing your physician or a specialist (a
urologist or whatever.)  This is a policy which is ostensiby
gender-neutral, applying equally to men with ED and women with
"Inhibited Sexual Desire" (ISD) although I'm not sure its impact ends
up being the same to both genders.

There has been some controversy about Viagra when newspapers started
reporting that former sexual offenders were getting Viagra and it was
being paid for by Medicaid, and this apparently gave people images of
their own tax dollars being used to create new super-sex-predators who
would brutally rape women and children with the incredible power of
modern pharmaceuticals.