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?

response 256 of 526:

Mar 2 16:21 UTC 2006

National healthcare would tax the rich to keep the poor healthy, so that the
healthy poor can work for the rich better to keep them rich.
It would also avoid a lot of administrative costs, keeping healthcare cheaper
for everyone.

response 258 of 526:

Mar 2 16:49 UTC 2006

I think that National healthcare is probably good for big business. 
Most large companies would LOVE to get rid of that expense. I suspect 
that the Walmarts and the General Motors of the world are already 
lobbying hard for it which means that it might actually come to pass. 

response 260 of 526:

Mar 2 17:21 UTC 2006

National health insurance is a foolproof way to really screw up things 
and make it more expensive, to boot.

On the subject of mandated coverage, those only apply to health plans 
that are not subject to ERISA.  Because ERISA regulates, for example, 
the auto industry health plans, they are exempt from state mandates.

response 262 of 526:

Mar 2 17:43 UTC 2006

I don't think very many fiscal conservatives are in favor of a 
government sponsored national health insurance plan.

response 264 of 526:

Mar 2 17:55 UTC 2006

Oh, oh.  Where do you get your information?  Here's a little dittie on 
how the government typically wildly underestimates the cost of health 
care programs.  Have fun.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/7/4/61.pdf#search='Medicare
%20ESRD%20cost%20estimate'