McCain Doesn't Recall

[Nancyg56]

And Viagra isn't elective?

That's the problem. You didn't hear a lot of complaining about BC not being covered before Viagra came on the market and insurance companies had no problem paying for it.

The double standard is what's discriminatory. Men "need" to be able to have sex, but women don't (without fear of an unwanted pregnancy).

That is where my issue lies. I have never understood arbitrarily paying for the one but not for the other. Seems to me that the results of not having one drug are not quite the same as not having the other. Yet which is paid for?

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Yippee skippy... let's get BC meds listed. That's small taters. How about including things like gym membership so that I get a break when I haul my fat rear end (though it's ever-dwindling ) down to the gym and stave off a heart attack for a few months, years, or decades. That would save a bazillion dollars for USAmericans according to my estimates.

 

[Master Mason]

And Viagra isn't elective?

That's the problem. You didn't hear a lot of complaining about BC not being covered before Viagra came on the market and insurance companies had no problem paying for it.

The double standard is what's discriminatory. Men "need" to be able to have sex, but women don't (without fear of an unwanted pregnancy).

This is not an apples to apples comparison. Being able to have sex is not the same as being able to have sex without using some other form of birth control.

If there were such a thing as a "male" pill, and the companies would pay for that but not the "female" pill, then you would have a case for discrimination.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I do not think that not covering birth control is discrimination. It seems to me it falls in the same category as elective plastic surgeries which I have never heard of an insurance company covering.

Breast reconstruction after cancer surgery? Cleft palate repair?

 

[CPT Tripss]

Yippee skippy... let's get BC meds listed. That's small taters. How about including things like gym membership so that I get a break when I haul my fat rear end (though it's ever-dwindling ) down to the gym and stave off a heart attack for a few months, years, or decades. That would save a bazillion dollars for USAmericans according to my estimates.

No, ir would save a "brazilian" - but . . . your proposals have serious merit

 

[freckles and boo]

This is not an apples to apples comparison. Being able to have sex is not the same as being able to have sex without using some other form of birth control.

If there were such a thing as a "male" pill, and the companies would pay for that but not the "female" pill, then you would have a case for discrimination.

I honestly don't know the answer to this question - Does insurance cover hormonal BC that is prescribed for reasons other than contraception? The pill is also used to regulate cycles and reduce pain and bleeding. Shouldn't that also be covered as a legitimate medical need?

 

[Nancyg56]

This is not an apples to apples comparison. Being able to have sex is not the same as being able to have sex without using some other form of birth control.

If there were such a thing as a "male" pill, and the companies would pay for that but not the "female" pill, then you would have a case for discrimination.

Perhaps discrimination is not the word. I would say it is the inequity of the two is what is offensive to me. I don't care if an insurance company pays for Viagra, it is a medication prescribed by a Dr, but BC pills are as well. They serve a purpose as do BC pills, also prescribed by Dr's. No one is asking for plastic surgery to be covered, at least not in this discussion. I do think that a reasonable person cannot compare BC to plastic surgery as an elective unless that person can compare viagra as an elective.

There were so many areas where women's health was secondary to mens health for insurance purposes and while those times have certainly changed for the better it is a shame that there are still areas in which a woman's prescription is not considered in the same light as a man's.

 

[OFFTONEVERLAND1]

And Viagra isn't elective?

That's the problem. You didn't hear a lot of complaining about BC not being covered before Viagra came on the market and insurance companies had no problem paying for it.

The double standard is what's discriminatory. Men "need" to be able to have sex, but women don't (without fear of an unwanted pregnancy).

I agree it is stupid to pay for one and not the other but it is a private company and their choice not the governments. If it bugs someone that much that they provide one and not the other than look for a company that provides the services that best fit your needs. If u can not come up with the 50 or so dollars it cost per month head on down to the health center where the government will provide it to you for free.

 

[OFFTONEVERLAND1]

Breast reconstruction after cancer surgery? Cleft palate repair?

Those are not the same as WANTING bigger breast or a cuter nose!!!!!

 

[Nancyg56]

Breast reconstruction after cancer surgery? Cleft palate repair?

I was thinking of breast reconstruction after surgery when I responded to an earlier post. I remember when it was not a covered procedure and I am only 51. Our insurance company finally covers it but I cannot understand why it took so long. This is not plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons.

 

[Master Mason]

I honestly don't know the answer to this question - Does insurance cover hormonal BC that is prescribed for reasons other than contraception? The pill is also used to regulate cycles and reduce pain and bleeding. Shouldn't that also be covered as a legitimate medical need?

Perhaps discrimination is not the word. I would say it is the inequity of the two is what is offensive to me. I don't care if an insurance company pays for Viagra, it is a medication prescribed by a Dr, but BC pills are as well. They serve a purpose as do BC pills, also prescribed by Dr's. No one is asking for plastic surgery to be covered, at least not in this discussion. I do think that a reasonable person cannot compare BC to plastic surgery as an elective unless that person can compare viagra as an elective.

There were so many areas where women's health was secondary to mens health for insurance purposes and while those times have certainly changed for the better it is a shame that there are still areas in which a woman's prescription is not considered in the same light as a man's.

In response to both, I am not attempting to argue that BC shouldn't be covered, and frankly I was sort of surprised to hear it was not as every health plan I have had did infact cover it. The cost of BC vs the cost of an unwanted pregnacy is significatly lower, so I would think it was in the insurance companies best interests to cover it.

All I was saying is that comparing viagra to birth control and saying it is discrimination is not a fair comparison to base a discrimination claim upon it.

I'm actully in your camp on this one. It should be covered.

 

[freckles and boo]

I agree it is stupid to pay for one and not the other but it is a private company and their choice not the governments. If it bugs someone that much that they provide one and not the other than look for a company that provides the services that best fit your needs. If u can not come up with the 50 or so dollars it cost per month head on down to the health center where the government will provide it to you for free.

There are plenty of regulations placed on insurance companies by the government. Most them are quite reasonable and serve to take medical decisions out of the hands of the insurance companies and put it back in the hands of the doctors. An example is the "drive-thru delivery" law passed in the late eighties.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

This is not an apples to apples comparison. Being able to have sex is not the same as being able to have sex without using some other form of birth control.

If there were such a thing as a "male" pill, and the companies would pay for that but not the "female" pill, then you would have a case for discrimination.

While I agree that there is no real "apples to apples" comparison when it comes to sexual function and BC between the two sexes, I can think of a much better reason to cover BC than Viagra. As you already mentioned, BC would prevent unwanted pregnancies, which are much more costly and create greater health risks than BC.

Viagra on the other hand, serves no purpose other than to give someone pleasure.

FTR, I don't really care if BC is covered by health insurance or not. Mine has never been covered, and I didn't mind paying for it myself. What bothers me is the inequity (that's a good way to put it, Nancy). For men, having sex alone is considered an important enough health issue to cover medication. For women, avoiding a real health issue - pregnancy - is not considered important enough to cover medication.

And when male politicians say that they "had not thought much about" it, I wonder what other women's issues they don't think or care about.

 

[jodifla]

There are plenty of regulations placed on insurance companies by the government. Most them are quite reasonable and serve to take medical decisions out of the hands of the insurance companies and put it back in the hands of the doctors. An example is the "drive-thru delivery" law passed in the late eighties.

Exactly.

AND THIS IS ONE MORE REASON MCCAIN SHOULDN"T BE PRESIDENT!!!!

Women's reproductive rights and reproductive health are an absolute core component to their well-being.

 

[Master Mason]

While I agree that there is no real "apples to apples" comparison when it comes to sexual function and BC between the two sexes, I can think of a much better reason to cover BC than Viagra. As you already mentioned, BC would prevent unwanted pregnancies, which are much more costly and create greater health risks than BC.

Viagra on the other hand, serves no purpose other than to give someone pleasure.

FTR, I don't really care if BC is covered by health insurance or not. Mine has never been covered, and I didn't mind paying for it myself. What bothers me is the inequity (that's a good way to put it, Nancy). For men, having sex alone is considered an important enough health issue to cover medication. For women, avoiding a real health issue - pregnancy - is not considered important enough to cover medication.

And when male politicians say that they "had not thought much about" it, I wonder what other women's issues they don't think or care about.

Here is the rub on that, can you have sex without BC pills? The answer is yes. Can those that need viagra have sex without the viagra? the answer is no. The Viagra allows one to participate in a basic human function, being for pleasure or procreation, it is still a major part of the human existance.

And again, I think BC should be covered, but comapring BC and viagra simply doesn't wash, the only way they are even remotely connected is they both about sex.

 

[freckles and boo]

Here is the rub on that, can you have sex without BC pills? The answer is yes. Can those that need viagra have sex without the viagra? the answer is no. The Viagra allows one to participate in a basic human function, being for pleasure or procreation, it is still a major part of the human existance.

And again, I think BC should be covered, but comapring BC and viagra simply doesn't wash, the only way they are even remotely connected is they both about sex.

Seeing clearly and hearing well are also part of the human experience, yet hearing aids are almost never covered, even for children who would benefit in the classroom and socially. Glasses and contacts are often excluded or covered minimally. Have working sex organs isn't any more important that seeing or hearing.

 

[Master Mason]

Seeing clearly and hearing well are also part of the human experience, yet hearing aids are almost never covered, even for children who would benefit in the classroom and socially. Glasses and contacts are often excluded or covered minimally. Have working sex organs isn't any more important that seeing or hearing.

OK, but what does that have to do with comparing BC to viagra exactly?

 

[freckles and boo]

OK, but what does that have to do with comparing BC to viagra exactly?

Nothing. But the argument that ED meds should be covered by insurance because getting hot and bothered is a vital part of the human experience doesn't ring true when parents have to pay thousands out of pocket to get hearing aids for their children with hearing loss. If we are talking about quality of life issues, hearing during formative years is just as important (or more important) than middle-aged sex.

 

[Master Mason]

Nothing. But the argument that ED meds should be covered by insurance because getting hot and bothered is a vital part of the human experience doesn't ring true when parents have to pay thousands out of pocket to get hearing aids for their children with hearing loss. If we are talking about quality of life issues, hearing during formative years is just as important (or more important) than middle-aged sex.

And again, I don't have any problem with that, but it still has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion that was being had

 

[Chicago526]

Here is the rub on that, can you have sex without BC pills? The answer is yes. Can those that need viagra have sex without the viagra? the answer is no. The Viagra allows one to participate in a basic human function, being for pleasure or procreation, it is still a major part of the human existance.

And again, I think BC should be covered, but comapring BC and viagra simply doesn't wash, the only way they are even remotely connected is they both about sex.

No, it's not apples to apples, At the end of the day, women can get pregnant and men can't, so there isn't going to be an exact "apple to apples" comparison. It's about as close as you can't get, both (in most cases) are not medically nessesary, but one is covered and the other isn't.