McCain on Viagra being more important than birth control

[MaripositaII]

Originally Posted by 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.

Don't scare me like that. I worry about this and especially since the recruiters keep calling my house for my kids. I even went as far as telling them that we are anti-Bush and anti-war, and to quit calling. The recruiter told me that I shouldn't be living in America.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well of course McCain won't be president in 18 years when that toddler might be old enough for such a draft, which was one of the criticisms of the (lack of) logic in that ad, I think.

Anyway, I like your initial comment, there, as whether there should be parity or fairness in health care coverage was the question put to him.

Steve

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well of course McCain won't be president in 18 years when that toddler might be old enough for such a draft, which was one of the criticisms of the (lack of) logic in that ad, I think.

Anyway, I like your initial comment, there, as whether there should be parity or fairness in health care coverage was the question put to him.

Steve

I think you may be misunderstanding me. We will almost certainly have to reinstitute the draft under McCain's plans. While he would not be in the executive office when the toddler reaches 18 it is McCain's policies which imo would lead to the child being drafted later in life. I hope that's clear.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

I think you may be misunderstanding me. We will almost certainly have to reinstitute the draft under McCain's plans. While he would not be in the executive office when the toddler reaches 18 it is McCain's policies which imo would lead to the child being drafted later in life. I hope that's clear.

No, I get it. Just restating one of the criticisms I've heard/read about the ad. And given that the whole ad is very personally worded, talking to McCain directly, you know, saying "you can't have him," well it's not unfounded criticism, I don't think (though I see your point, too).

Steve

[tmc]

Originally Posted by 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.

The government should get out of the business of mandating health coverages and let individuals and insurance companies decide what type of policies should be offered. There is no logical reason why my health insurance should be tied to my place of employ; I should purchase it on the open market, as I do for auto and life insurance now. The range of insurance products, those that would cover pregnancy, mental health care, viagra, or birth control, should be left to the parties in the policy, not some political hack in the State House, or Washington, DC.

As to conscription, there is no reason to believe that there would be a need to do so. We used to have an Armed Forces, all-volunteer, of 2.1 million in 1989, ten years later the number was 1.4 million, a 30% reduction; these people did not resign, they were fired, or down-sized. We are at about 1.45 million now, a number mandated by Congress. Congress can raise that number whenever they chose, the question is whether they can fill the spots with volunteers. I think as long as we muzzle John Murtha, and prevent him from calling our soldiers "cold-blooded killers", and depose of Harry Reid, who told our fighting men and women on the battlefield that their war was over, and that they were the losers in that war, we could probably get more people to join. Give our soldiers the respect, pay, and support they deserve and you'll have plenty of volunteers.

As to your tag line

"Why is it an honor for the poor to die for their country but a burden for the rich to pay their taxes? -unknown"

you make a good point; first person I would ask that of is Alex's mom in the Moveon commercial.

[ryberg]

So you're saying you think it is or it isn't OK/fair for insurance companies to cover Viagra but not birth control?

Brings up that old conflict between conservative views of small government and the hallowed role of business, on the one hand, and what happens when businesses don't necessarily operate in a way that is deemed fair or proper and people suffer for it, on the other hand.

Steve

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by tmc

As to conscription, there is no reason to believe that there would be a need to do so. We used to have an Armed Forces, all-volunteer, of 2.1 million in 1989, ten years later the number was 1.4 million, a 30% reduction; these people did not resign, they were fired, or down-sized. We are at about 1.45 million now, a number mandated by Congress. Congress can raise that number whenever they chose, the question is whether they can fill the spots with volunteers. I think as long as we muzzle John Murtha, and prevent him from calling our soldiers "cold-blooded killers", and depose of Harry Reid, who told our fighting men and women on the battlefield that their war was over, and that they were the losers in that war, we could probably get more people to join. Give our soldiers the respect, pay, and support they deserve and you'll have plenty of volunteers.

You might also want to check those who oppose important recruitment measures like increasing tuition benefits to veterans. That would include many GOP senators, including McCain, who originally opposed Webb's bill. How he ended up getting thanked for its passing, when he didn't bother to show up for the vote, is beyond me.

Please don't get me started on the Moveon ad. It is a POS and they have finally stopped playing it in Ohio.

Hmmm...an important women's health issue to the draft in 3 pages?

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

So you're saying you think it is or it isn't OK/fair for insurance companies to cover Viagra but not birth control?

Steve

The insurance companies should respond to market forces and offer those products people want to buy. Some policies might be for catastrophic coverage only, other might run from soup-to-nuts. I am certain that both types of drugs you mentioned would be included in a fair number of policy options.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by tmc

The government should get out of the business of mandating health coverages and let individuals and insurance companies decide what type of policies should be offered. There is no logical reason why my health insurance should be tied to my place of employ; I should purchase it on the open market, as I do for auto and life insurance now. The range of insurance products, those that would cover pregnancy, mental health care, viagra, or birth control, should be left to the parties in the policy, not some political hack in the State House, or Washington, DC.

As to conscription, there is no reason to believe that there would be a need to do so. We used to have an Armed Forces, all-volunteer, of 2.1 million in 1989, ten years later the number was 1.4 million, a 30% reduction; these people did not resign, they were fired, or down-sized. We are at about 1.45 million now, a number mandated by Congress. Congress can raise that number whenever they chose, the question is whether they can fill the spots with volunteers. I think as long as we muzzle John Murtha, and prevent him from calling our soldiers "cold-blooded killers", and depose of Harry Reid, who told our fighting men and women on the battlefield that their war was over, and that they were the losers in that war, we could probably get more people to join. Give our soldiers the respect, pay, and support they deserve and you'll have plenty of volunteers.

I don't think your statements about the availability of volunteers for the military is realistic. The Army has significantly lowered their standards for recruits. The standards now allow recruits with criminal records and who lack high school diplomas to enlist. I very seriously doubt most recruits pay much heed to whatever statements from Reed and Murtha you wish to take out of context and twist. Especially since you seem to support President Bush, the absolutely best example of a creator of political gaffes in history.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by melliedee

You might also want to check those who oppose important recruitment measures like increasing tuition benefits to veterans. That would include many GOP senators, including McCain, who originally opposed Webb's bill. How he ended up getting thanked for its passing, when he didn't bother to show up for the vote, is beyond me.

Please don't get me started on the Moveon ad. It is a POS and they have finally stopped playing it in Ohio.

Hmmm...an important women's health issue to the draft in 3 pages?

I admit I haven't read the specifics as to what differences existed in the bill(s) proposed by those GOP senators you referenced and the one ultimately passed; those differences may or may not have been significant enough to impact recruitment rates. That being said, we do need a coherent strategy to "right-size" the military and to ensure it is staffed by capable individuals, properly trained, and outfitted. Clearly there is something radically wrong with a system that permits us to be spread so thin with our resources while engaged in one minor and one mid-level regional conflict; we need to think about a significant increase in our force projection capabilities.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

The insurance companies should respond to market forces and offer those products people want to buy. Some policies might be for catastrophic coverage only, other might run from soup-to-nuts. I am certain that both types of drugs you mentioned would be included in a fair number of policy options.

Of course.

But the question is whether it's fair/OK for others not to include coverage for birth control, even while covering Viagra. That's fair/OK to you?

I'm trying to think of some potential parallels. For example, theoretically speaking, if some insurance plans covered many other major diseases, and even some not so serious ones, but did not cover sickle-cell anemia, which is typically suffered only by people in the black community, would that be fair/OK? Wouldn't there be a social fairness issue there, as one group was not getting the same kind of treatment from the insurance company involved as other groups, where there didn't seem to be any other significant reason for that, or reason that conformed to the needs of the business?

And wouldn't you think that members of the black community might be upset at a candidate who was asked if this situation was fair and who then hemmed and hawed and dragged his hand across his face and said he was not sufficiently informed on the issue? (And he might have more right to than McCain does in this case, as the analogy involves a more technical situation!)

Steve

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

I don't think your statements about the availability of volunteers for the military is realistic. The Army has significantly lowered their standards for recruits. The standards now allow recruits with criminal records and who lack high school diplomas to enlist. I very seriously doubt most recruits pay much heed to whatever statements from Reed and Murtha you wish to take out of context and twist. Especially since you seem to support President Bush, the absolutely best example of a creator of political gaffes in history.

The recruits may not pay much heed, but those already in the military who may chose to re-enlist certainly do. Those are the people that we are losing now, forcing us to rely on a different pool of recruits. Please provide the context for Murtha's comments that I failed to properly understand; what was the phrase or two before Reid's statement that dressed it all up and changed the meaning as I wrote it?

Now, if you are claiming that the statements were gaffes, as you seem to imply with your last sentence, then why bother looking into the context of the statements? You would only care about context if the statements were meant to stand as part of an overall theme, not if they were mistakes on the part of the speaker; which were they?

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Of course.

But the question is whether it's fair/OK for others not to include coverage for birth control, even while covering Viagra. That's fair/OK to you?

I'm trying to think of some potential parallels. For example, theoretically speaking, if some insurance plans covered many other major diseases, and even some not so serious ones, but did not cover sickle-cell anemia, which is typically suffered only by people in the black community, would that be fair/OK? Wouldn't there be a social fairness issue there, as one group was not getting the same kind of treatment from the insurance company involved as other groups, where there didn't seem to be any other significant reason for that, or reason that conformed to the needs of the business?

And wouldn't you think that members of the black community might be upset at a candidate who was asked if this situation was fair and who then hemmed and hawed and dragged his hand across his face and said he was not sufficiently informed on the issue? (And he might have more right to than McCain does in this case, as the analogy involves a more technical situation!)

Steve

There really isn't a parallel because many wrongly regard Viagra as a universal cure/blessing. After all, isn't ED everyone's problem?

Birth control? A "women's" health issue, therefore not universal (or important).

[roni]

The insurance companies, like other industries, should be regulated by us (we the people's govt)

This is a point on which one may disagree, but those who believe that insurance companies should be unregulated will never carry the day.

At one point in our history, we believed that meat-packing plants should be unregulated. Didn't work out so well.

Unregulated industries in capitalist economies brought governmental regulation down on their own heads due to abusive business practices.

They should remain regulated.

That is the side that will and has always carried the day against unregulated or weakly regulated industries.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Of course.

But the question is whether it's fair/OK for others not to include coverage for birth control, even while covering Viagra. That's fair/OK to you?

I understand, I think, what you mean by fair, but it has nothing to do with my point. If some policies were written to exclude Viagra, then Bob Dole won't buy that policy; those that exclude birth control pills/devices won't be purchased by those who need them.

I'm trying to think of some potential parallels. For example, theoretically speaking, if some insurance plans covered many other major diseases, and even some not so serious ones, but did not cover sickle-cell anemia, which is typically suffered only by people in the black community, would that be fair/OK?

If some insurance companies choose to write policies that don't include sickle cell anemia, then they will not get any of the business from those that may potentially suffer from such a disease; if the need exists to cover such an illness, it will be covered.

Wouldn't there be a social fairness issue there, as one group was not getting the same kind of treatment from the insurance company involved as other groups, where there didn't seem to be any other significant reason for that, or reason that conformed to the needs of the business?

I would expect there to be more than one insurance company, and as such you could choose the one most responsive to your needs. The only time we have to worry about there being only one insurance company is when the government runs health care.

And wouldn't you think that members of the black community might be upset at a candidate who was asked if this situation was fair and who then hemmed and hawed and dragged his hand across his face and said he was not sufficiently informed on the issue? (And he might have more right to than McCain does in this case, as the analogy involves a more technical situation!)

Steve

Only if he were unable to articulate a coherent plan that described how a different approach might work for the betterment of all.