Then, what is the justification for health insurance paying for Viagra, Cialis, etc.?

Originally Posted by simone

Who is Bill Mayer and why should anyone care what he says?

Bill Maher

Originally Posted by simone

Then, what is the justification for health insurance paying for Viagra, Cialis, etc.?

As I pointed out in another post, I'd be upset if the government required insurance to cover those. As far as I know, they do not. As you well know, most insurance currently covers birth control.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

As I pointed out in another post, I'd be upset if the government required insurance to cover those. As far as I know, they do not. As you well know, most insurance currently covers birth control.

Wrong!

A 2007 Mercer study of large employers revealed that only about 30% denied coverage for erectile dysfunction medications. By contrast, about half of all major health insurance plans do not provide routine contraceptive coverage for women. Though states have begun enacting legislation to rectify this inequality, affordable contraceptive coverage remains out of reach for a large number of women with health insurance.

Birth Control and Health Insurance

Originally Posted by jyoshu

Bill Maher

Is this the incident?

Real Time host Bill Maher wasn’t talking about energy efficient light bulbs when he used the term “2 watt” in reference to Sarah Palin on his show, and he wasn’t expressing a wish to see her next Tuesday during a weekend performance of his stand-up act. The late-night comic/political pundit often uses shocking language to cultivate an “edgy” persona, but his gender-based attacks on conservative women like Palin and Michele Bachmann threaten to alienate the many pro-vagina viewers in his audience.

Bill Maher Calls Sarah Palin XXXX | Stand-Up Act | Mediaite

Of course, Maher does not have the media exposure that Limbaugh has because Limbaugh is babied along by the extreme right wing media in this country. And he didn't spend three whole days raving and raging and storming in expletives over this single woman.

How many people saw Maher make his statement?

How many people heard Limbaugh exploding out his mouth in expletives about Sandra Fluke?

Originally Posted by simone

Wrong!

Birth Control and Health Insurance

http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/360204/3607204t1.pdf

in the 90% range. Try finding a reliable source.

Here are some other fun facts for you since I'm clearly more educated on the subject...

Currently 28 states mandate health insurance providers cover contraceptives. Of those 28, 20 have exceptions for religious organizations (to a varying degree with most allowing any religious objection).

That's twice now you tried calling me out and were shown to be wrong. I've always considered you a fair poster; why don't you show me the same respect.

Originally Posted by simone

All three shows and it never entered your mind that he was personally attacking Ms Fluke?

Your standards are very, very shaky.

Once again he was referring to the message as it appears at first glance. He apologized because he didn't make it clear that it was a hypothetical. He used language such as "what does that make her.." specifically to the assertion that contraception is a right.

Contraception for everybody should be free and easily accessible.

The money saved would be greater than what it costs because unwanted children end up costing more than the price of prevention and abortion rates would probably go down as well.

Originally Posted by Accipiter

Contraception for everybody should be free and easily accessible.

The money saved would be greater than what it costs because unwanted children end up costing more than the price of prevention and abortion rates would probably go down as well.

Then you pay for it.

And you pay up for unwanted children, Freedom. the children whose mothers are unable to care for because of economics, have too many children already, or for other reasons.

If you want to deny freedom to women, your freedom should be diminished too.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

It can cost that much for some of the newer brands. For example the Nuvaring is like $56 a month without insurance. Perhaps not having to remember to take the pill is also something we should all pay for.

Or, maybe we need to look at offering the pill as a base level solution, then if there is a medical reason to change, they can trade up...or of course opt to do so at their own expense.

Which is why every insurance company offers it. From what I understand, you have to literally request it NOT to be covered when getting bids for policies. I'm fine with someone wanted to pay more for having something not covered.

I was actually talking about this with one of our local insurance agents today while I was eating breakfast at the local cafe. He said he would guess that the catholic church has in the past paid more for a policy that does not include contraceptive coverage because of the costs imposed by pregnancy. He did say that this may no longer be the case because now that insurance companies profits are capped at 15% of gross revenues, there has been a shift toward a "more health care costs is better" line of thought.

Insurance companies have never actually objected to high health care costs, and have helped drive them up, because nothing makes for better advertising for a health insurance company than a good "broken toe destroyed my financial future" story, but he says now there definitely seems to be a widespread effort, if not a concerted one, to see health care prices increase...it is the only way they can increase their profits.

Not a bad option. I'm not a doctor though and from what I understand the pill comes in many forms which do different things to your body. I'm fine with this if the Doc's give it the a-ok. The price would probably go down again.

Are you serious? I would be shocked to see doctors EVER advocate making ANY drug non prescription. How would they make any money that way?? I have a problem with paronychia (nail infection). My hands get really dry and the skin will sometimes crack around my fingernails, and sometimes some bacterial will get in there and cause an infection. No big deal. Usually I just put neosporin on it and a bandaid for a couple days and it clears right up. If not, I need antibiotics...cephalexin always works.

So, I get my little infection, need Cephalexin. I call the doctor, make an appointment, get there and sit around in the waiting room for an hour, go in, he looks at my finger, looks at my chart, says "paronychia again" and prints me out a prescription for cephalexin. I get charged for a 10 minute consult, which is $56 after my insurance discount. Since I buy my families insurance it is more cost effective to have a high deductible policy that covers 100% of expenses over $10,000 in a year period and just pay the small stuff out of pocket. So, I shell out that $56 and go get my prescription filled...the generic cephalexin only runs about $20.

Now, if I did not need the prescription, the whole thing would cost me at most $20...probably less because I would not have to pay the doctor that $56. If you were a doctor, would YOU suggest making that an over the counter drug? Of course not. You want to be able to charge people $56 for the 2 minutes it takes to look at a finger and print out a script.

What it comes down to is whether we are going to trust consumers to make good, educated decision on their own or not. Sure, some people may kill themselves doing stupid things with drugs. They already do. Stupid people kill themselves with aspirin all the time.

In a perfect world this just shouldn't be federal issue to begin with. You only XXXX people off when you make rules to cover 300 million people. Even more so when you require it through companies. Ron Paul is right, the argument about whether or not we should cover birth control is silly...once you accept the federal government should dictate health care you lost the argument that they shouldn't do what is best to reduce costs. What Paul, and myself, would argue is that it just shouldn't be a federal issue to begin with. If it has to be a federal issue I'd prefer to follow the Swiss model which makes it individual instead of via a company (and even then it'd be better at the state level...Switzerland is only 8 million people).

I don't disagree, but that is not the world we are living in. Either the federal government needs to be out of health care, or they need to be all the way in. This stuff where they play around the edges and it costs the taxpayer a fortune and they are still making sure the big insurance companies are making billions is a giant pile of steaming poo.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

You Know Simone,

The reasons you give are EXACTLY why, assuming no adverse health issues I'm unaware of, the pill should be OTC. Why shouldn't a woman be able to pick up a little card like they have for Sudafed and get a pack of pills? At $.20 to manufacture you'd probably get a pack for $8-9 a month. At that point the insurance is not necessary and you have lower costs for women (insurance is known to increase cost of medicine).

That's the real solution.

I know our local health department offers birth control on a sliding scale. Their wholesale cost is $2.70 per unit (1 months supply) and they charge anywhere from $2 per month to $5 per month and use the profits to help defray the costs of their STD screening. I dont know what wholesale costs on the neuvaring are, but I see you can order them from canadian pharmacies for as little as $20 each, so I would guess wholesale is somewhere around $10?

Originally Posted by jyoshu

He's right though: I don't remember hearing a word from you or others here when Bill Mayer publicly called Sarah Palin a c**t.

I don't even remember that. I do remember Don Imus calling some women's basketbal team a bunch of "nappy headed hos", and I remember speaking up about that. I don't condone baseless attacks on people, regardless of their political affiliation. However; Imus, Rush, or Bill Maher aren't what I was talking about. I was talking to and about Easyrider, and he is not right. He is making baseless allegations that Fluke is slut and would partake in an abortion should she get pregnant.

If he has some inside knowledge of Flukes sexual practices, or her personal feelings towards abortion, then he may make statements of opinion about her as he sees fit. Until then, he is making baseless conclusions based on no evidence that Fluke "puts out like a friggin' gum ball machine" and that he has "no doubt that if she did get knocked up she'd very likely kill the unborn baby so she wouldn't be inconvenienced". You want to defend that? Good luck. In Easy's mind, you're either a christian conservative or a baby killing heathen liberal. That kind of narrow mindedness if far below you jyoshu, and you know it.

If he brought me proof that Fluke had sex with 7 different men in the last month, I would call her a slut myself.