McCain Doesn't Recall

[breezy1077]

Um, sorry. But even if the sides were turned and this thread were about BO - I just don't see Women's Healthcare, especially birth control as an issue even worthy of debate.

Is it too simplistic to say, "who cares"?

 

[Master Mason]

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.

No they are not remotely close. Can you have sex without the aid of BC pills. Yes. Can you have sex without the aid of Viagra (if you need it) NO.

And again, please note, I am not argueing that either should be covered or not covered, just that it is not a valid comparison.

 

[Chicago526]

No they are not remotely close. Can you have sex without the aid of BC pills. Yes. Can you have sex without the aid of Viagra (if you need it) NO.

And again, please note, I am not argueing that either should be covered or not covered, just that it is not a valid comparison.

Okay, so what is?

 

[Uncle Remus]

Um, sorry. But even if the sides were turned and this thread were about BO - I just don't see Women's Healthcare, especially birth control as an issue even worthy of debate.

Is it too simplistic to say, "who cares"?

Simplistic isn't how I would describe your "who cares?"

Womens' healthcare should be important to every American 'n especially the President.

 

[Master Mason]

Okay, so what is?

As you pointed out, there isn't one, men can not get pregnant, and todate there is no male version of the pill. So, that means this is an arguement that must stand on it's own. Should BC be covered under insurance plans or not.

You can't say because men get to be allowed to actually have sex, that BC should be covered.

And as I have stated several times here, yes I belive it should be covered, if for no other reason that the cost of BC is much less than the cost of an unwanted pregnancy, so it seams to me that it would be in the insurance companies best intrests to pay for it.

 

[Master Mason]

Simplistic isn't how I would describe your "who cares?"

Womens' healthcare should be important to every American 'n especially the President.

I agree with you 100% that it should be important to every American. It is important to me because I have women in my life that I love and care about. My question though is why it should be moreso for the President? Exactly what part of the Constitution dictates this?

 

[breezy1077]

Simplistic isn't how I would describe your "who cares?"

Womens' healthcare should be important to every American 'n especially the President.

Um, I'm sure it is important - just not politically.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

Can someone please explain to me why it is any of the governments business what private insurance companies offer and what they don’t?

Because BC is not just about being able to decide when to have a baby.

It also concerns health issues. Many women go on birth control for other reasons instead of not to get pregnant. Many women with ovarian cysts are prescribed BC to help break them up. Ovarian cysts can turn into cancer. Which would you rather have? A woman on BC that doesn't get cancer? Or the woman who can't get BC because her insurance refuses to cover it and ends up with cancer because of it?

This is also not the only reason women are prescribed BC.

I've often wondered why reproductive rights are the government's business myself.

So true. But, the right is more concerned about "families" than a woman's health.

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.

Please read my response above.
BC isn't just about not getting pregnant.

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).

Precisely.

Breast reconstruction after cancer surgery? Cleft palate repair?

Oh no. Both must be elective plastic surgery. Those are necessary.

I couldn't even eat if I had not been able to have my cleft lip and palate repaired.

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.

Sorry. But a person doesn't need to have sex. That doesn't affect your overall health.

But a woman with ovarian cysts do need to get rid of them. BC is the way to do that.

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?

Nope. My insurance did not cover my prescription even though it was for a cyst and not for contraception. I hadn't been active and was not active at the time of my prescription. But did that matter to my insurance company? Absolutely not.

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.

So you would rather pay for everyone to have birth control but not to have it paid for by the insurance company that the person who needs it is paying?

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.

Yep. Breast reduction is also a health benefit. But it's plastic surgery.

No they are not remotely close. Can you have sex without the aid of BC pills. Yes. Can you have sex without the aid of Viagra (if you need it) NO.

And again, please note, I am not argueing that either should be covered or not covered, just that it is not a valid comparison.

The pill is not just about having sex! Other forms of BC don't get rid of cysts. Or have the medical benefits that the pill does.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

I agree with you 100% that it should be important to every American. It is important to me because I have women in my life that I love and care about. My question though is why it should be moreso for the President? Exactly what part of the Constitution dictates this?

In the constitution? No.

But it seems that, like you, many think of the pill only as a form of BC. And many on the right doesn't really want to support BC of any kind because women should be having babies "whenever God want's them to". Denying women to BC is ensuring that families are created. The same with providing men with Viagra. It ensures that men can have families.

 

[Master Mason]

Sorry. But a person doesn't need to have sex. That doesn't affect your overall health.

But a woman with ovarian cysts do need to get rid of them. BC is the way to do that.


The pill is not just about having sex! Other forms of BC don't get rid of cysts. Or have the medical benefits that the pill does.

These were the two responses directed to me.

If you talk to your Dr. I'll bet that they tell you differently, having sex will effect your overall health for most people.

And if you'll note, I think that BC should be covered, never argued otherwise, I was simply arguing that because viagra is covered is not an arguement for BC being covered. The arguements you present are much better, and are actually relevent.

 

[breezy1077]

Why can't American citizens take personal responsability for themselves. If we leave it to the government to take care of EVERYTHING - there's no time, energy or money left over for them to take care of the things we as citizens can't.

Grow up america - jump into adulthood and stop thinking of the government as your parents! We're not little kids who need "looking after". Grow up and start taking personal responsibility for your lives. Geesh!


Oh, and BTW, there are forms of birth control that do not require healthcare intervention.

 

[Master Mason]

In the constitution? No.

But it seems that, like you, many think of the pill only as a form of BC. And many on the right doesn't really want to support BC of any kind because women should be having babies "whenever God want's them to". Denying women to BC is ensuring that families are created. The same with providing men with Viagra. It ensures that men can have families.

Now your putting words in my mouth that I never said. Go back and read what I have said on the subject and show me where I have ever said that BC pills are only a form a BC.

 

[Mr Man]

Per McCain's campaign rep Carly Fiorina:



Linky



He doesn't recall?

Is this guy outta touch or what?

& prompted by this strange thread, a one word response was received from Sen McCain's camp by Mr Man this afternoon........

Message as follows:

"Nuts"


Please carry on......

 

[cteddiesgirl]

Now your putting words in my mouth that I never said. Go back and read what I have said on the subject and show me where I have ever said that BC pills are only a form a BC.

Because that's the only thing you have talked about on this thread. That's it for BC. Did you ever mention on this thread about any other uses of the pill?
That's why I said that it seems like you think that.

 

[Nancyg56]

Yep. Breast reduction is also a health benefit. But it's plastic surgery.

I was not referring to breast reduction. Breast reconstruction after a mastectomy is an entirely different procedure, and was not a covered expense for a long time. Plastic surgery? Perhaps, but to a woman who has lost one or both breasts to cancer there is no comparison to reduction. I do believe that there are serious health issues associated with large breasts and believe that there are medical reasons to justify that surgery as well.

 

[Master Mason]

Because that's the only thing you have talked about on this thread. That's it for BC. Did you ever mention on this thread about any other uses of the pill?
That's why I said that it seems like you think that.

NO what I have consistantly said is that BC should be covered by insurance, but that saying because viagra is covered BC should be covered is not a valid arguement for covering BC pills. There are much better reasons to do so, the one I gave in particular was because it would prevent unwanted pregancies, but I never said that was the only reason, only one of them. I also commented that your reasons were another excelent example of why they should be covered.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I agree with you 100% that it should be important to every American. It is important to me because I have women in my life that I love and care about. My question though is why it should be moreso for the President? Exactly what part of the Constitution dictates this?

Constitution?

What Constitution?

Sorry, I couldn't resist, I've been watchin' bush burn the Constitution.

Seriously, if one wants to be elected President in this country, one has to play the game, part of that game is showin' concern for fellow Americans.

And please don't restrict our Presidents to the limits of defending the Constitution, the job is so much more than that in the real world.

Oh and ftr, every American's health should be of concern to the President.

And my own personal opinion is this country could benefit from an educated and informed President which is the real issue about McCain, isn't it? The guy doesn't know that condoms can prevent STDs?

And then someone asked about public funding for contraception in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS.
"I'm sure I've taken a position on it in the past," he stammered as he looked to his communications director. "I'm sure I'm opposed to government funding."

Sensing a vulnerable moment, reporters kept the questions coming. What about sex education in the schools? Should it mention contraceptives? Or only abstinence, like President Bush wants?

"I think I support the president's present policy," he said, tentatively.

More questions: Do condoms stop sexually transmitted disease?

A long pause.

A stern look.

"I've never gotten into these issues or thought much about them," he said, almost crying uncle.

Linky

What the heck does this guy know?

 

[Master Mason]

And please don't restrict our Presidents to the limits of defending the Constitution, the job is so much more than that in the real world.

Then perhaps that's the problem. If they were doing what the constitution and the oath of their office requires of them, and leaving the rest to the states and the people, as the constitution requires of them, then perhaps we would all be alot better off.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

I was not referring to breast reduction. Breast reconstruction after a mastectomy is an entirely different procedure, and was not a covered expense for a long time. Plastic surgery? Perhaps, but to a woman who has lost one or both breasts to cancer there is no comparison to reduction. I do believe that there are serious health issues associated with large breasts and believe that there are medical reasons to justify that surgery as well.

I know you didn't. I was adding it to the list of necessary "elective" surgerys.
But you know, it's much harder to live with back pain than to live with no breasts.

NO what I have consistantly said is that BC should be covered by insurance, but that saying because viagra is covered BC should be covered is not a valid arguement for covering BC pills. There are much better reasons to do so, the one I gave in particular was because it would prevent unwanted pregancies, but I never said that was the only reason, only one of them. I also commented that your reasons were another excelent example of why they should be covered.

Read it again. I didn't say that you thought it shouldn't be covered. But you never referred to any other use than for birth control. Unless I missed it somewhere.

 

[Holly]

Then perhaps that's the problem. If they were doing what the constitution and the oath of their office requires of them, and leaving the rest to the states and the people, as the constitution requires of them, then perhaps we would all be alot better off.