McCain on Viagra being more important than birth control

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by ryberg

The question isn't about any particular bill or any particular measure that was included or excluded or covered or whatever in any particular bill. The question was put to him by the questioner, who noted that his own surrogate, Carly Fiorina, had recently complained that it seemed unfair to her that insurance companies would cover Viagra but not birth control. The question was if McCain had any comment on that, not on the specifics of HR 1234 or whatever.

Clearly McCain doesn't have an answer. If the question had been on the specifics of HR 1234 or whatever, then saying "I'm not sufficiently informed on that to comment" might make sense. But the question was just whether he had any view on the idea that insurance companies covering Viagra but not covering birth control might not be unfair.

Of course opinions vary, but the implication is that the question is rather basic and one does not need to go and do a lot of research or read through HR 1234 in its entirety 5 times to be able to comment on that question. One can safely assume that J Sidney McCain is aware of both Viagra and birth control and their purposes, and of health insurance in general and of the nature of our society in general.

So, is that situation fair?

Steve

I don't like this type of ad. It reminds me of the little sound byte of Kerry saying "I actually voted for it before I voted against." He was of course talking about amendments that had been added to a bill.

I'm not sure it's Planned Parenthoods job to run these type of ads. If their going to run them they should bring even larger issues to attention. For instance how a small religious minority have such power in our country that they can make a women worry that she may lose her right to choose. I think Planned Parenthood takes federal money and I don't think their funds should be spent this way in a direct attack on a candidate.
I

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by ryberg

The original post includes not only mention of McCain's voting record but also mention of a brief justification of that vote on other grounds.

I'm not "reaching" for anything, in part because I don't know what one would reach for in this case, it seems so rather clear just in what you see already...

Anyway, the main question is whether it makes much sense to consider covering Viagra but not birth control isn't it?

Steve

My apologies, I did not see that part of the post.

Originally Posted by Babaloo

or maybe building a bridge to nowhere...or something else that no rational citizen would want...i'm just sayin' cuz i have no idea what was tacked on to that bill - do you?

Exactly

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

I don't like this type of ad. It reminds me of the little sound byte of Kerry saying "I actually voted for it before I voted against." He was of course talking about amendments that had been added to a bill.

I'm not sure it's Planned Parenthoods job to run these type of ads. If their going to run them they should bring even larger issues to attention. For instance how a small religious minority have such power in our country that they can make a women worry that she may lose her right to choose. I think Planned Parenthood takes federal money and I don't think their funds should be spent this way in a direct attack on a candidate.
I

Exactly again

[SunKneeMarie]

time and again I hear that phrase "tacked on that bill" (it comes up around here at home a lot in discussions of what was voted on, etc)... it seems a handy discussion ender...

I understand what that means, but I don't understand how this "lumping" of items occurs... why aren't things listed as separate bills? expediency? compromise?

and I did hear somewhere that McCain was in favor of ending this practice as he would prefer to be voting on one major item at a time... (I have no links; so discount it if you want )

Anyway, it just seems convoluted to me... but I is simple folk, so.....

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by SunKneeMarie

time and again I hear that phrase "tacked on that bill" (it comes up around here at home a lot in discussions of what was voted on, etc)... it seems a handy discussion ender...

I understand what that means, but I don't understand how this "lumping" of items occurs... why aren't things listed as separate bills? expediency? compromise?

and I did hear somewhere that McCain was in favor of ending this practice as he would prefer to be voting on one major item at a time... (I have no links; so discount it if you want )

Anyway, it just seems convoluted to me... but I is simple folk, so.....

McCain is very opposed to tacking on earmarks, which sometimes are worthy causes, other times are pet projects with strong lobby ties...

I think adding items to bills which have nothing to do with the original legislation is a partisan game to make one side or the other's bill fail. I agree, convoluted.

[ashburnva]

I think that it is reasonable to cover viagra, but not contraception, from a medical insurance perspective.
Assuming erectile dysfunction is a medical condition, and assuming that a normal sexual life is important to general physical and mental health, that would seem within the purview of health insurance coverage.
Contraception does not appear to be intended to treat a medical condition, but to facilitate dealing with the consequences of behavior. Should medicaid buy me condoms? I don't think so.
From a public policy perspective, I might have a different opinion. though I would never approve of tax payer funding, or the practice of abortion or use of the "day-after" pill.
Frankly from cost-benefit analysis., health insuerers would seem to save a lot of money by giving the contraceptives out, gratis.
Either way, silly issue, like most coming out of the endless campaign.

[taotoon]

Originally Posted by ashburnva

I think that it is reasonable to cover viagra, but not contraception, from a medical insurance perspective.....
Contraception does not appear to be intended to treat a medical condition, but to facilitate dealing with the consequences of behavior. Should medicaid buy me condoms? I don't think so.....
.

Birth control pills do treat a LOT of medical conditions that women suffer and are even given to women with no uterus in order to regulate hormones. Without them many women would suffer unduly.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Babaloo

or maybe building a bridge to nowhere...or something else that no rational citizen would want...i'm just sayin' cuz i have no idea what was tacked on to that bill - do you?

Originally Posted by horizon200

Exactly

Exactly irrelevant, as the question was again not about any proposed legislation, which is easy to see from the video itself but which I also pointed out in post 13.

This approach to the matter misses the point and, intentionally or unintentionally, gives McCain a free pass on what is a valid question.

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

I don't like this type of ad. It reminds me of the little sound byte of Kerry saying "I actually voted for it before I voted against." He was of course talking about amendments that had been added to a bill.

I don't think it's that type. The one you mention, or for example the ones that take McCain's 100 years comment about Iraq, are taking a snippet of what the candidate said out of its context and presenting it to suggest that it might mean something else. Here the candidate doesn't have anything to say, and he makes that painfully clear with his facial expression and hand gestures and so on. Then he comes up with a silly answer that he's not informed enough on the subject to comment, one which again might sound acceptable if they were asking him about a particular bill which might be quite complex and which would have various items added to it or excluded from it or questionable wording in some parts or whatever.

But contrary to many reactions here, that is not the case. He was simply asked a general question about things he should know about and have an opinion about, as a man running for president. The conclusion is that (1) he is not paying attention to important issues, even (it turns out) on which he has voted in the past and on which a prominent surrogate of his is publicly commenting, or (2) he doesn't think it's unfair to cover Viagra for men but not birth control for women (which I as a man nevertheless am aware is used for other medical conditions, incidentally, not just to prevent pregnancy), and he's afraid to state that for the political cost, especially it would seem in terms of female voter support.

They didn't take anything he said out of context to make it sound silly or to make it appear that it means something else, they just revealed that those are the two possible interpretations of the candidate and his views, at this point. That his own surrogate brought this to the fore and that he's voted on the topic before just turn out to underscore that they have not taken something out of context.

Personally I think if people like MoveOn want to attack McCain and his positions or views, they could learn from Planned Parenthood's approach, here, which seems eminently more reasonable to me than what MoveOn did in that ad with the toddler, for example. (Of course, that ain't exactly sayin' much!)

Steve

[ashburnva]

Originally Posted by taotoon

Birth control pills do treat a LOT of medical conditions that women suffer and are even given to women with no uterus in order to regulate hormones. Without them many women would suffer unduly.

In that case, and for that purpose, that should be covered.

[roni]

Originally Posted by ashburnva

In that case, and for that purpose, that should be covered.

Birth control pills should be covered without question and for any purpose for which they are approved and deemed necessary by the physician and the patient.

As a matter of state law, I believe birth control pills are covered in Oregon.

[ashburnva]

[quote=ryberg;1153370]I don't think it's that type.
But contrary to many reactions here, that is not the case. He was simply asked a general question about things he should know about and have an opinion about, as a man running for president. The conclusion is that (1) he is not paying attention to important issues . . ."

Steve, Apologize for clumsy editing

If this is in important issue, debating the relative merits of viagra and contraception, I must be out of touch.
I couldn't care less about this issue, or that he doesn't know anything about it. This is typical got-ya bs ad, to show McCain as out of touch and old, and probably by implication on his way to senility.
The quality of these two candiates and the quality of the last three presidents make it abundantly clear that we need a viable third-party option in our political system.

[taotoon]

Originally Posted by ashburnva

In that case, and for that purpose, that should be covered.

They should be covered regardless. They are not cosmetic and they have value in preventing birth, treating conditions and other off label uses. I cannot think of a single reason they should not be covered. It is not like taking a BCP is the equivalant of botox shots for wrinkles!

[BonnyW]

Originally Posted by roni

Birth control pills should be covered without question and for any purpose for which they are approved and deemed necessary by the physician and the patient...
.

I absolutely agree.
There are many, many medical non-birth control reasons why birth control pills (BCPs) are used. Same thing with the morning-after pill...it is used in rape cases. Why should a woman have to give justification for taking something that either is or isn't used for birth control? Would she have to get a letter from her doctor stating that the BCPs are for a certain reason--just so that she can have her insurance companies approve a BCP prescription???

Why should she not have a choice to take them if she and her physician decide that the benefits of taking them outweigh the risks? Are we suggesting that she shouldn't have a choice--that the government, religion and healthcare should decide what is best?

Oh, and I think viagra is necessary too. Especially for those that enjoy the effects. So, will 'they' start asking if viagra prescriptions are for heterosexual relationships or for homosexual relationships? Isn't all about how it is going to be used???

mi dos pesos y centavos...

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by ashburnva

Steve, Apologize for clumsy editing

No problem! And actually I liked your previous comments, as they seemed to get to the issue (whatever your view on that might be).

Originally Posted by ashburnva

If this is in important issue, debating the relative merits of viagra and contraception, I must be out of touch.
I couldn't care less about this issue, or that he doesn't know anything about it. This is typical got-ya bs ad, to show McCain as out of touch and old, and probably by implication on his way to senility.
The quality of these two candiates and the quality of the last three presidents make it abundantly clear that we need a viable third-party option in our political system.

Well that last part goes in an entirely different direction, but on the other stuff, I have a couple of reactions. One is that it was important enough for one of his (female) surrogates to bring it up in a televised interview. So again if that's happening, you'd think he'd be ready for questions on it, somehow. Another is that it is after all part of the health care issue, which is obviously a major issue that all candidates have plans for and have devoted time to and which people regularly discuss. So it's not like it comes completely out of the blue in that way, either. And, he's voted on the issue in the past, on top of all that.

Finally, I think there's an obvious danger in any man, and in particular any aging man, from McCain to whomever, saying this is not a big issue, much like there's an obvious danger in, say, any white person saying that affirmative action or inner city school funding is not a big issue. Clearly the person saying that in those cases or others like them is benefiting from the current situation and is not part of the group being affected by, or having a stake in, the proposed issue or change. I think for that reason alone, even if it's just politics, McCain should have been more prepared to provide a presentable answer. But when you lump that in with the importance of health care in general, his own surrogate bringing up the topic, the fact that he's voted on it in the past...

Well yes, I would agree that it shows him to be out of touch with, or insensitive to, the needs of quite a lot of Americans out there.

Steve

[Just Lucky]

Just to be clear, I do think that contraceptives should be covered by insurance. Call me crazy but I also think there should be parity in mental health coverage.

That doesn't mean I like the ad. I actually think the MoveOn ad is likely more accurate, McCain does think we should be in Iraq for a century. In order to continue the troop levels we would very likely have to reinstitute the draft. Just listen to what our military leaders are telling us about readiness etc. Once consription is instituted it will be difficult to stop. Just look at our own history in the matter. In such a scenario the toddler might well be consripted at age 18.