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.

response 244 of 526:

Mar 1 13:42 UTC 2006

Psychotherapy doesn't help ED for situations where someone has a disease like
diabetes which causes plaque resulting in ED.  Of course, ED at that point
is more about mental health.

response 246 of 526:

Mar 1 19:06 UTC 2006

"what th' heck awr wemmen complanin about...thay kin
 git vaslleen otc an thets all th' sexual aid thay need
 fer as im consarned, lynne *slutlover* freemond."
 

 love in christ,
                 james *naked shower with your son* dobson

response 248 of 526:

Mar 1 19:35 UTC 2006

"so whur 'r yew doin sunday after mornin' worship, miz 
 freemond?"


 love in christ,
                 james *boobs-a-lot* dobson

response 250 of 526:

Mar 1 22:21 UTC 2006

>I wonder how insurance coverage varies by state. Is birth control more
>likely to be covered in "blue" states? 

Along those lines, this: 
http://www.agi-usa.org/media/nr/2006/02/21/index.html

response 252 of 526:

Mar 2 15:01 UTC 2006

Thanks, "klg"--that's a truly handy link.

A quick look would seem to show that mandated contraceptive coverage (29
states) does not seem to follow any predictable red/blue pattern.  Only
21 states mandate maternity coverage.  

Other tidbits:

*45 states mandate alcoholism treatment coverage, only 35 mandate drug
abuse treatment coverage.

*Only one state does not mandate mammogram coverage (Utah); only one
state (Washington) does not mandate coverage for maternity hospitalization.

*9 states (including Michigan) do not require insurance policies to
cover adopted children.

*13 states mandate newborn hearing screening coverage; only 2 states
mandate coverage for newborn sickle-cell testing.  

*47 states mandate that chiropractors be a covered provider; only 11
states do the same for nurses.

*Minnesota mandates the most coverages, Idaho the fewest.  Michigan
ranks near the bottom (somewhere around 43rd)

response 254 of 526:

Mar 2 15:51 UTC 2006

> If you force insurance to cover everything, individual plans will be 
> a lot more expensive.

Isn't that the main argument against national healthcare?