McCain on Viagra being more important than birth control

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

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.

Those specific words, when added to the weight of others in the media, and with other politicians claims, certainly do little to encourage people to stay on, and I know one 25-year vet of the Marines that told me as much. Was it the sole cause of his choice to leave, no; but it sure didn't provide him comfort.

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

link

That is not evidence, it is hearsay. Do you really believe we can call Marines killers for unsubstantiated claims made by aggrieved family members? Talk about a rush to judgment; so much for due process, eh?

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

I can only say that you are a fool, and your having to play the "Nazi card" is my evidence. You should be ashamed of yourself!

[tmc]

Originally Posted by melliedee

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.

That is my entire point; the system does not exist because of the rules/regulations/mandates imposed by the government far in excess of what is needed to support proper functioning of the system.

On your first point, I like the way you think.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by tmc

That is my entire point; the system does not exist because of the rules/regulations/mandates imposed by the government far in excess of what is needed to support proper functioning of the system.

On your first point, I like the way you think.

Yes, and a rule/regulation which would favor Viagra coverage over birth control (voted twice on by McCain) would be a reflection of the inherent unfairness of that broken government system.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by tmc

Those specific words, when added to the weight of others in the media, and with other politicians claims, certainly do little to encourage people to stay on, and I know one 25-year vet of the Marines that told me as much. Was it the sole cause of his choice to leave, no; but it sure didn't provide him comfort.



That is not evidence, it is hearsay. Do you really believe we can call Marines killers for unsubstantiated claims made by aggrieved family members? Talk about a rush to judgment; so much for due process, eh?



I can only say that you are a fool, and your having to play the "Nazi card" is my evidence. You should be ashamed of yourself!

The only heresy in the story is the victims relatives reaction. The rest is purely factual. I personally don't think that Murtha should have said that. On the other hand I can see a Marine with his background:

In 1959, Murtha, then a captain, took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

Who may have lost friends owing to a desire not to knowingly take civilians life reacting in this way.

The paper on why the Germans supported Hitler seems to follow your logic as far as dissent about war. I encourage you to read the paper and compare it to your own stances on what you see the role of a citizen to be. There are some remarkable similarities.

In a democracy like ours there has been dissent over every single war. Because the nation is at war should never take away our right to dissent. In fact things have improved in Iraq precisely because peoples voices were raised over the suitability of Rumsfeld for his position. The public pressure also led to speedier up-armouring of vehicles. There are other examples in the rebuilding program which even with criticism still has many flaws. Otherwise the Iraqis would have signed the security agreement. It is our duty as citizens to speak out when we see our government in error.

[ryberg]

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.

Why exaggerate things? Basic fairness is not tantamount to your description there at all.

And why say I feel compelled to bring race into the matter? I said I was trying to think of an analogous situation, meaning one in which a particular demographic segment of the population was not receiving even roughly equivalent service. If you think the analogy is bad, explain why, and/or provide a better one. Sexism and racism obviously share broad parallels, at the least, no?

What you have done is answer the question, which I do appreciate. The issue of fairness doesn't matter to you. That I don't think is consistent with the core principles of America whether it's coverage for birth control alongside Viagra or the right of women to vote alongside men, or coverage for sickle-cell anemia alongside cancer or the right of minority children to an equivalent quality education.

Of course ideas differ, though. [shrug]

Steve

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Why exaggerate things? Basic fairness is not tantamount to your description there at all.

And why say I feel compelled to bring race into the matter? I said I was trying to think of an analogous situation, meaning one in which a particular demographic segment of the population was not receiving even roughly equivalent service. If you think the analogy is bad, explain why, and/or provide a better one. Sexism and racism obviously share broad parallels, at the least, no?

What you have done is answer the question, which I do appreciate. The issue of fairness doesn't matter to you. That I don't think is consistent with the core principles of America whether it's coverage for birth control alongside Viagra or the right of women to vote alongside men, or coverage for sickle-cell anemia alongside cancer or the right of minority children to an equivalent quality education.

Of course ideas differ, though. [shrug]

Steve

You are completely missing the point; why should every insurer offer the exact same coverage? Isn't that essentially what we have now, and part of the problem? Shouldn't a young man, in excellent health, with no bad habits, be permitted to buy an insurance policy that doesn't cover pregnancy if he wants to save a few dollars? Shouldn't a similarly situated female be allowed to purchase a catastrophic care policy only, without coverage for IVF? Why would the failure of an insurance policy to cover these conditions be any less fair than your scenario of not covering sickle cell anemia? Let people choose what they want, they will be the arbiters of fairness, every policy can't be all things to all people, otherwise, there will be no discernible cost differences for poorer people to benefit from; we do want access for all, don't we?

Your addition to the list the educational rights of minority children (that race thing again) is preposterous. You mentioned you appreciated my response to you question, please answer mine: for what other products will you insist that every purveyor offer the exact same options in order for it to qualify as American?

[roni]

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.

It's called insurance - pooled risks.

[roni]

duplicate post

[roni]

About the Book

The Great Risk Shift | Jacob S. Hacker



The currently favored response to rising insecurity is to throw more tax breaks and individual accounts at Americans to encourage them to save and invest on their own. This may help the privileged, but it won’t provide strong guarantees of economic security to ordinary Americans, who are just barely staying afloat. Nor will it stop the huge shift of risk onto these hardworking families as jobs, health care, and retirement all become less secure. Quite the opposite: “The Ownership Society” is akin to throwing a lead weight to a drowning man, on the assumption that now he will really have an incentive to swim.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by roni

It's called insurance - pooled risks.

Pooling of risk has nothing to do with the nature of the product any individual might purchase. You could spread the cost to bear the risk over the largest possible group, without forcing everyone to purchase the same policy. Those that are more at risk would by definition pay a higher rate than those who are not at risk, as the former would buy specific coverage to protect against that specific loss and the latter would not and thus opt out of that particular coverage.

Not everyone buys a 10 million dollar life insurance policy, and the cost for such is much greater for a eighty-year old heart patient than a twenty-year old athlete, if it is even available to the former. Do we begrudge the insurance company for not writing a policy for the older gentleman? When you purchase auto insurance, do you expect every person to buy every optional coverage (towing service, car rental, umbrella coverage)? Why should you do so for health insurance.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

The only heresy in the story is the victims relatives reaction. The rest is purely factual. I personally don't think that Murtha should have said that. On the other hand I can see a Marine with his background:

The factual items you pointed out were those of a Marine describing how he thought he was under attack, and his response; does that make him a cold-blooded killer? Everything else was as I said, family members of victims making statements. Why don't you think Murtha should have said it, unless you feel that the attack was not one of "cold-blooded killers"? If you do feel they were in fact "cold-blooded killers", I would expect you to have the courage of your convictions to say so.

Who may have lost friends owing to a desire not to knowingly take civilians life reacting in this way.

With regards Murtha's service, no one is questioning what he did in Vietnam years ago, the issue is what he said in the current war. Unless you have specific evidence to back up your claim about what Murtha saw, you have no point. Do you know whether or not Murtha ever killed any civillians, or whether he ever stopped short of doing so under circumstance like he decried regarding the Marines in Haditha?

The paper on why the Germans supported Hitler seems to follow your logic as far as dissent about war. I encourage you to read the paper and compare it to your own stances on what you see the role of a citizen to be. There are some remarkable similarities.

In a democracy like ours there has been dissent over every single war. Because the nation is at war should never take away our right to dissent. In fact things have improved in Iraq precisely because peoples voices were raised over the suitability of Rumsfeld for his position. The public pressure also led to speedier up-armouring of vehicles. There are other examples in the rebuilding program which even with criticism still has many flaws. Otherwise the Iraqis would have signed the security agreement. It is our duty as citizens to speak out when we see our government in error.

Tell me about my logic about dissent during war, using my words, and not your crazed interpretation of the same. Where have I ever written that blind obedience is the mark of a patriot? When have I said dissent is not to be tolerated...oh, I know, when I said that losing your life in defense of your country is at least the patriotic equal to dissenting about a war--a phrase straight from the Nuremburg rallies, correct?

No, it must have been this one, straight from Goebbels himself:

Our troops are in harms way; serious policy differences regarding the conduct of the war are critical to our success, but in some cases that may appear overbearing and unyielding, and overly strident and self-defeating, you do acknowledge that such things can happen? Certainly you can discern the difference between liberty-loving dissent and treachery; you can draw that line in your own mind wherever you choose. Our founders did in fact dissent, not between themselves, but with England. They bound themselves together with solemn vows to put their sacred honor, their property, and their lives on the line to build a country; they showed the most extraordinary unity in the face of adversity. Without that unity of purpose, all would have been lost. If some chose to draw it at a different point than you, are they automatically wrong?

Wow, could I have said that, that we need to have voiced policy differences in order to successfully prosecute this war? What was I thinking, now I'll have to return my swastika and jackboots!

So, since our last go-round over patriotism you stumbled onto an article about the Nazi's and their supporters, and couldn't wait to loose it. As usual, the last card to be played is the "I'm in a discussion with a conservative about war, he must be a Nazi" one so favored by those "Fashionably Leftist". Does being "Fashionable Leftist" mean that your political views are not to be taken seriously, and that your words are all poses? That would explain a lot.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

You are completely missing the point; why should every insurer offer the exact same coverage? Isn't that essentially what we have now, and part of the problem? Shouldn't a young man, in excellent health, with no bad habits, be permitted to buy an insurance policy that doesn't cover pregnancy if he wants to save a few dollars? Shouldn't a similarly situated female be allowed to purchase a catastrophic care policy only, without coverage for IVF? Why would the failure of an insurance policy to cover these conditions be any less fair than your scenario of not covering sickle cell anemia? Let people choose what they want, they will be the arbiters of fairness, every policy can't be all things to all people, otherwise, there will be no discernible cost differences for poorer people to benefit from; we do want access for all, don't we?

Your addition to the list the educational rights of minority children (that race thing again) is preposterous. You mentioned you appreciated my response to you question, please answer mine: for what other products will you insist that every purveyor offer the exact same options in order for it to qualify as American?

Well judging by your last couple of responses, you seem to know a little something about completely missing the point and being preposterous.

As if I'd ever suggested such in the first place, or anyone could really mistakenly believe so in the first place, I've already explicitly pointed out that the idea of a control to stop basic unfairness is not at all tantamount to requiring any or every business or service provider presenting identical services and products. You would have us believe that in recognizing and rejecting the basic unfairness of the Montgomery bus system and its rules allowing black people to sit only in the back and never in the front, the boycotters were in reality demanding that every black person be offered identically comfortable seats an identical number of steps from an exit with identical views out the window and identically formed handrails and so on, or indeed a completely numerically balanced proportion of black and white people in the front and the back of the bus, with passengers playing musical chairs at every stop to maintain that. Right -- preposterous! Except it has nothing to do with the issue of demanding a control that would stop the basic unfairness in evidence. I feel sure you are of sufficient intellect to discern this, and therefore can only wonder why you keep missing that point and instead presenting preposterous exaggerations of the issue, here.

So I have already answered your question but I will answer it again for you in your own terms: for precisely no products am I insisting that every purveyor offer the exact same options in order to qualify as American. I simply see a government role in protecting the interests of society, in this case by coming in to prevent what appears to be obvious and unwarranted unfairness, though in other cases it could have to do with health and safety or other important issues.

Again, you have stated that fairness doesn't matter, and evidently hold the all too common conservative view that any regulation -- even in a case like this, to prevent basic unfairness -- is equivalent to Big Brother controlling us all and logistically impossible (like the bus musical chairs example), in the bargain. And that you also hold the corollary view, that society's needs (apparently even in an issue as necessary as proper health care) will be met adequately simply through market forces and the free operation of businesses in it. What can I say? I know others hold to such views, but I believe them to be woefully naive, and unfortunately in some cases, if presented apparently insincerely (as they unfortunately sometimes are), to be propaganda-style hogwash meant more than anything to further particular groups' current levels of success even at the expense of others.

Fairness -- which, it bears repeating, is far from every business and provider presenting an identical batch of services or products -- is precisely the issue in America, in my opinion, again whether we're talking about huge scale things, such as the right of women to vote or the overturning of Plessy with Brown, or the hypothetical I suggested regarding covering sickle-cell anemia alongside diseases contracted by non-minorities, or this case of covering birth control alongside Viagra, or indeed on the micro scale, when I'm playing a game at home with my son and he points out to me that I still have a move to make, even though it may be disadvantageous to him to have done so. I am proud of him for having done so, because to me, it is the American way.

Steve

[Playa del Soul]

The new government plan going to cover other choices, like abortion, sex change operations, and plastic surgery? If so, can I get a penis enlargement?

Birth control is a choice. If there are real, medical needs for the taking of birth control pills, then they should be covered. If it is simply to avoid pregnancy, then they should be treated the same as any other elective. Actually, a better case can be made for covering condoms, as they PREVENT disease. Birth control pills prevent pregnancy which, last I checked, is not a disease. Although, some seem to think that way. (especially when the one who is pregnant is poor or uneducated. Can't be having those babies running around, can we? )

ED is an illness. Birth control, in most cases, is a choice. When the mother's life could be in danger, cover it. If not, don't burden me with paying for your choices.

This topic is indicative of just exactly why the Government should not involve itself in health care and insurance. Imagine the lobbying that will go on, so that each and every thing, that can be remotely associated with healthcare, will be covered. We will end up paying for it all or very little of it (like Mexico, for example).

[Rissask]

I remember well when our comany ownership changed and suddenly our prescription insurance changed from covering birth control AND ED meds, to just ED meds....there was a huge stink raised and it was changed shortly. Not only is it completely sexist to just cover ED meds, there is arguably a religious/moral judgement angle in there too.

Now both are covered, and I think that is fair.

Employees using birth control saves the company a lot of money in the long run in insurance costs, you would think they would jump at the chance to save money.
And the older male employees being able to get it up is good for morale, I imagine.



Things that I do find unfair that I have to pay money toward are very expensive things that might or might not work- like weight loss surgery and IVF.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well judging by your last couple of responses, you seem to know a little something about completely missing the point and being preposterous.

As if I'd ever suggested such in the first place, or anyone could really mistakenly believe so in the first place, I've already explicitly pointed out that the idea of a control to stop basic unfairness is not at all tantamount to requiring any or every business or service provider presenting identical services and products. You would have us believe that in recognizing and rejecting the basic unfairness of the Montgomery bus system and its rules allowing black people to sit only in the back and never in the front, the boycotters were in reality demanding that every black person be offered identically comfortable seats an identical number of steps from an exit with identical views out the window and identically formed handrails and so on, or indeed a completely numerically balanced proportion of black and white people in the front and the back of the bus, with passengers playing musical chairs at every stop to maintain that. Right -- preposterous! Except it has nothing to do with the issue of demanding a control that would stop the basic unfairness in evidence. I feel sure you are of sufficient intellect to discern this, and therefore can only wonder why you keep missing that point and instead presenting preposterous exaggerations of the issue, here.

So I have already answered your question but I will answer it again for you in your own terms: for precisely no products am I insisting that every purveyor offer the exact same options in order to qualify as American. I simply see a government role in protecting the interests of society, in this case by coming in to prevent what appears to be obvious and unwarranted unfairness, though in other cases it could have to do with health and safety or other important issues.

Again, you have stated that fairness doesn't matter, and evidently hold the all too common conservative view that any regulation -- even in a case like this, to prevent basic unfairness -- is equivalent to Big Brother controlling us all and logistically impossible (like the bus musical chairs example), in the bargain. And that you also hold the corollary view, that society's needs (apparently even in an issue as necessary as proper health care) will be met adequately simply through market forces and the free operation of businesses in it. What can I say? I know others hold to such views, but I believe them to be woefully naive, and unfortunately in some cases, if presented apparently insincerely (as they unfortunately sometimes are), to be propaganda-style hogwash meant more than anything to further particular groups' current levels of success even at the expense of others.

Fairness -- which, it bears repeating, is far from every business and provider presenting an identical batch of services or products -- is precisely the issue in America, in my opinion, again whether we're talking about huge scale things, such as the right of women to vote or the overturning of Plessy with Brown, or the hypothetical I suggested regarding covering sickle-cell anemia alongside diseases contracted by non-minorities, or this case of covering birth control alongside Viagra, or indeed on the micro scale, when I'm playing a game at home with my son and he points out to me that I still have a move to make, even though it may be disadvantageous to him to have done so. I am proud of him for having done so, because to me, it is the American way.

Steve

But the whole point of this "fairness" thing is, who decides what is fair? You claim it is unfair to cover cancer, but not sickle cell anemia, assuming such a thing would ever transpire. What if a man with ED claims it is unfair to cover sickle cell anemia and not ED, don't we then have to cover ED? If a women claims it is unfair to cover ED and not IVT, don't we now have to cover IVT? Do you now see my point, every disease has to be covered by all plans, lest someone be treated unfairly.

Your use of the Mongomery bus system exactly proves my point, that the basic right to ride the bus (health insurance policies) is intact, what will change are the types of buses and accessories therein (specific policy elements/coverages).