McCain on Viagra being more important than birth control

[tmc]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't disagree with your points about regulation, and certainly there is ample reason to employ such regulation as needed. What we don't need is what we have now, an overbearing government and outdated insurance model that stifles innovation and access to proper care.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

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).

Riiigghhhht...

Or to translate that to my analogy attempt, cancer is everyone's problem, but sickle-cell anemia? A "black" issue, therefore not universal (or important).



We'll need some drinks at our little soiree with Stewart next week, methinks...

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

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.

By this reasoning, I suspect we'd have rural folks without running water, electricity, cable TV or the Internet.

The idea that market forces will necessarily ensure that what are considered even basic needs are provided for adequately is woefully naive conservative dogma, I'm afraid.

But in any event, even if you disagree with that characterization, your argument here still doesn't answer the question: in the event that a given insurance company covered other diseases, including less serious ones and including ones that basically only affected white people, would it be fair for a company not to cover sickle-cell anemia, which basically only affects black people?

I'm not interested in whether companies will or won't provide such coverage in terms of the market. I'm interested in whether it is fair if they don't do so. That is the question that was put to McCain: is it fair?

Steve

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Riiigghhhht...

Or to translate that to my analogy attempt, cancer is everyone's problem, but sickle-cell anemia? A "black" issue, therefore not universal (or important).



We'll need some drinks at our little soiree with Stewart next week, methinks...

Steve

Yep. That way, it'll be easier to tell when I agree with your point!

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Yep. That way, it'll be easier to tell when I agree with your point!

What the...

You mean you don't always agree with my points?!?



Steve

[SunKneeMarie]

I just figured it was in the wording/description. ED is described as a dysfunction... there is something wrong medically if a man can't sustain an erection, ergo medication to fix that problem.

Birth control pills for birth control aren't medically "necessary" to "fix a problem." For hormone regulation and other issues, yes, and I believe some people do get them covered because the doctor issuing the prescription writes up documentation to that effect. My MIL is on "hormones" (as she calls them) and when I referred to them as Birth Control Pills, she corrected me, saying no, they were "hormones." That always makes me laugh--is it because she's opposed to birth control, or that she doesn't want us to think she still has sex??

One would think the insurance companies would see the big picture as far as the cost of a monthly prescription versus the cost of pernatal care, a birth, a hospital stay and subsequent pediatric visits, but whatevah....

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by SunKneeMarie

I just figured it was in the wording/description. ED is described as a dysfunction... there is something wrong medically if a man can't sustain an erection, ergo medication to fix that problem.

Birth control pills for birth control aren't medically "necessary" to "fix a problem." For hormone regulation and other issues, yes, and I believe some people do get them covered because the doctor issuing the prescription writes up documentation to that effect. My MIL is on "hormones" (as she calls them) and when I referred to them as Birth Control Pills, she corrected me, saying no, they were "hormones." That always makes me laugh--is it because she's opposed to birth control, or that she doesn't want us to think she still has sex??

One would think the insurance companies would see the big picture as far as the cost of a monthly prescription versus the cost of pernatal care, a birth, a hospital stay and subsequent pediatric visits, but whatevah....

I'd define an unwanted pregnacy as a "problem." Medical, financial, societal, emotional...

[SunKneeMarie]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I'd define an unwanted pregnacy as a "problem." Medical, financial, societal, emotional...

I understand that... I 100% agree with that... I was saying how I think the insurance companies are seeing it... that "problem" doesn't exist yet... thus my final paragraph up there about how, if they were really thinking bottom line $$, they should be seeing it...

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by SunKneeMarie

I understand that... I 100% agree with that... I was saying how I think the insurance companies are seeing it... that "problem" doesn't exist yet... thus my final paragraph up there about how, if they were really thinking bottom line $$, they should be seeing it...

I agree. I'm slaphappy about vacation and having problems agreeing today.

[SunKneeMarie]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I agree. I'm slaphappy about vacation and having problems agreeing today.

betwixed and betwittered, are ya??

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I agree. I'm slaphappy about vacation and having problems agreeing today.

Woo Hoo! Yee Haw! I'll be you are!

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by tmc

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?

So then, it is merely your supposition that the words of Murtha and Reed cause these folks not to re-up? I can think of many other reasons as well. Stop-Loss, longer deferments, disagreements with the existing policies all spring to mind. If you have proof that even one soldier did not re-enlist solely because of the statements you mentioned I'd be most interested in seeing it. My experience has been that there are many factors which lead to the lack of re-enlistment. I doubt these statements had much to do with the decision.

As far as the Murtha statement here is what he had evidence of.

No one disputes that Marines killed 24 men, women and children in this town in four separate shootings that morning. Relatives said the attack was a massacre of innocent civilians that followed a roadside bomb that killed one Marine and injured two. Marines say they came under fire following the bomb.....While other Marines' accounts have differed from his, Wuterich told the CBS News program 60 Minutes last year that he shot at five unarmed men outside a white car because he believed they were a threat when they started to move away from the car. At the first home they raided, where women and children were inside, he said he told his men to "shoot first and ask questions later", because he believed the Marines were coming under "sporadic" fire from the dwelling.

Wuterich said that he didn't consider killing 24 people a massacre and that he did what he did to protect his Marines from what he perceived to be a threat.

"I remember there may have been women in there, may have been children in there," he told 60 Minutes. "My responsibility as a squad leader is to make sure that none of the rest of my guys died ... and at that point we were still on the assault, so no, I don't believe [I should have stopped the attack].

This is how the residents of Haditha recall that day: U.S. Marines were apparently bent on revenge after a roadside bomb killed one of their own. They killed four unarmed men and an unarmed taxi driver. Then they threw grenades and entered two homes. In the Younes' household, they killed eight people, including two toddlers, a 5-year-old and a mother recovering from an appendectomy.

link



Some of your previous statements on this forum remind me of this thought process:

Once troops were committed to battle, most ..civilians understood their duty — support the troops who were now fighting and dying on the battlefield for their country, for the fatherland. The time for debating and discussing the causes of the war would have to wait until the war’s end. What mattered, once the war was under way, was winning.

link

[Playa del Soul]

As usual, tmc is dead right. Why would a single, male want to pay an additional cost for a policy that includes birth control? Why would a single woman be interested in a policy that covered Viagra? Different people have different needs, which are better addressed by policies that cover individuals, rather than the universe. Individuals with like needs are grouped together and pay accordingly.

Are you seriously putting forth the premise that everything should be covered for everybody? Smokers pay the same as non smokers. Old pay the same as young. Robby Kneivel should pay the same as the school teacher, although the daredevil's chances of injury are thousands of times higher than that of the educator?

This is not a government function. I am seriously expecting the day to come when the calls ring out for a Department of Wipe My Ass For Me.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

By this reasoning, I suspect we'd have rural folks without running water, electricity, cable TV or the Internet.

The idea that market forces will necessarily ensure that what are considered even basic needs are provided for adequately is woefully naive conservative dogma, I'm afraid.

I am not opposed to some level of state involvement/regulation of the industry, nor would I oppose various consortia or groups, possibly state-financed, that could help provide costs savings and access to health insurance. By opening up the process, you would be amazed at what people can accomplish.

But in any event, even if you disagree with that characterization, your argument here still doesn't answer the question: in the event that a given insurance company covered other diseases, including less serious ones and including ones that basically only affected white people, would it be fair for a company not to cover sickle-cell anemia, which basically only affects black people?

I'm not interested in whether companies will or won't provide such coverage in terms of the market. I'm interested in whether it is fair if they don't do so. That is the question that was put to McCain: is it fair?

Steve

Why do you feel compelled to bring race into the discussion? The point is fairness has nothing to do with it; if you think it unfair, that's fine, to me it doesn't matter. It would be tantamount to assuming that every doctor had to provide the same services, or every clinic needed the same diagnostic equipment, or every food market offer the exact same products; it is a non sequitur.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by Welshly Squirt

As usual, tmc is dead right. Why would a single, male want to pay an additional cost for a policy that includes birth control? Why would a single woman be interested in a policy that covered Viagra? Different people have different needs, which are better addressed by policies that cover individuals, rather than the universe. Individuals with like needs are grouped together and pay accordingly.

Are you seriously putting forth the premise that everything should be covered for everybody? Smokers pay the same as non smokers. Old pay the same as young. Robby Kneivel should pay the same as the school teacher, although the daredevil's chances of injury are thousands of times higher than that of the educator?

This is not a government function. I am seriously expecting the day to come when the calls ring out for a Department of Wipe My Ass For Me.

To keep her own stockpile in a not-so-hidden agenda to enslave men, who would exist solely to service the Queen?

Seriously, my employer just switched to a universal carrier. So, if the new plan doesn't cover my individual needs, I'm screwed and paying out of pocket. The system you and tmc propose does not exist for many people.