Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditI realize it's not as world-shaking as the caricature of the Obamas on the cover of The New Yorker, which has the high-end media in a total tizzy. It's probably not even as important as the raunchy joke Bernie Mac told at an Obama fundraiser last week, which was bumped from the tizzy list by the New Yorker story. But can't the commentariat take a break from itself and let the world know how much John McCain opposes birth control? Vastly more people rely on contraception than read The New Yorker or know Bernie Mac from mac'n' cheese. In fact, vastly more people use birth control than believe Obama is a secret Muslim. They might like to know that when it comes to contraception, McCain is no maverick.
Here's the story. Last week, Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard who has been helping McCain look bright-eyed and estrogen-friendly, told reporters that women wanted more choice in their health care plans; for example, it bothered women when plans covered Viagra but not contraception. Big mistake! McCain had voted against a bill that would have required plans to cover birth control if they covered prescription meds at all, like, um, Viagra. McCain's nonresponse when queried about this by a reporter was astonishing. As posted on Youtube, he squirms and grins and smirks (Viagra! Embarrassing!) and fumfers about evasively. "I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer," he manages to splutter, "because I don't recall the vote, I've cast thousands of votes... it's something I've not thought much about."
So. John McCain is so opposed to contraception he voted against requiring insurance plans to cover it like other drugs, and either so indifferent to women's health and rights or just so out of it he doesn't even remember how he voted. That's the way to show American women you really care.
This is not a trivial issue. There's the basic unfairness of not covering these essential, even life-saving drugs and devices, so fundamental to women's health and well-being, and the added insult of denying coverage while men are lavished with cut-rate erections. And there's the craven submission to religious extremists that moves the politics of that denial. It's a pocket-book issue, too: A year's worth of contraception can cost a woman $600. That's a lot of money. Is it too much to expect the next president of the United States to understand that? Now that every politican in America prides himself on knowing the price of a gallon of milk and talks like he's just finished doing the week's shopping for a family of ten?
The story heated up the blogosphere, but a Nexis search at the beginning of this week found only 61 mentions in print and on TV, and most of those were passing references in stories about McCain's bad week (Phil Gramm calling Americans "a nation of whiners" obsessed with a "mental recession" got most of the attention) or focused on the effect Fiorina's off-message remark will have on her vice-presidential chances.
Where is the discussion of the real issue, which is that for over twenty years John McCain has voted against contraception every time it came up and -- now he tells us! -- doesn't even care or know enough to explain why. Women --and men -- need to know where he stands on this issue so basic to health and human flourishing if they are going to make informed decisions in the polling booth. But so far the media has refused to present McCain's anti-contraception record as a big, coherent story that tells us a great deal about who he is and what policies he would pursue in the White House.
Maybe The New Yorker could do a cover about it. Then the media might find it interesting enough to discuss.
The press doesn't want to discuss real issues. Especially real issues about McCain. They won't touch McCain and they will only print sensationalist stories.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 12:30pm
"They might like to know that when it comes to contraception, McCain is no maverick."
But he is indeed a maverick, as the vast majority use contraception.
Although true, that probably included him & his, back when.
Posted by sloper at 07/17/2008 @ 12:32pm
But he is indeed a maverick, as the vast majority use contraception.
Although true, that probably included him & his, back when.
Posted by sloper at 07/17/2008 @ 12:32pm
Almost certainly true, given another slip of the tongue (i.e., honest response) and correction (i.e., pander to the religous right) that McCain engaged in some years ago when asked whether he would consider abortion an option if his daughter - I assume she was underaged at the time - got pregnant. His first answer was yes, it would be among the options his family would consider. After a day or two of shock and awe by the Falwells of the world, McCain trotted out and revised his answer, stating that in fact he would never allow his daughter to choose to abort the fetus growing in her body.
So much for personal sovereignty and liberty!
Posted by cka2nd at 07/17/2008 @ 2:01pm
>>>McCain's nonresponse when queried about this by a reporter was astonishing. As posted on Youtube, he squirms and grins and smirks (Viagra! embarrassing!) and fumfers about evasively. ""I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer," he manages to splutter, " because I don't recall the vote, I've cast thousands of votes... it's something I've not thought much about."<<<
That IS astonishing!
McCain doesn't know much about the economy and hasn't though much about healthcare coverage.
If McCain only thinks about military matters, perhaps he should be running for Secretary of Defense rather than president of the United States?
Posted by Metteyya at 07/17/2008 @ 2:11pm
i guess the real issue is: 'how big an issue is reproductive freedom and family planning this year?'
the issue is always very important, but, with two disastrous wars, one of which was completely needless, and a domestic economy experiencing borderline panic in its financial sector and all the signs of a potentially severe recession heating up, and an oil shock underway, it is unsurprising that the quadrennial dual over birth control and abortion hasn't been the usual crowd pleaser it is
the issue should get more attention; likewise, being "opposed to birth control" is a lot like "being opposed to the law of gravity". john mccain isn't going to take away birth control any more than he is going to invent cold fusion.
Posted by Zero at 07/17/2008 @ 3:19pm
john mccain isn't going to take away birth control any more than he is going to invent cold fusion.
Posted by Zero at 07/17/2008 @ 3:19pm
Not that I am endorsing Obama, but let's be careful about laying down absolutes here.
Where do Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito - McCain's kinds of justices, or at least the cost of Religous Right support - stand on Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that found the right to privacy inherent in the constitution and therefore invalidated laws criminalizing birth control?
Not to mention that McCain could continue the Bush policy of funding dishonest, anti-contraception abstinence-only sex education programs to the exclusion of comprehensive sex ed, both here and abroad.
The absolutists may hate it, but the anti-choice, anti-sex gradualists have been making progress for more than 30 years, sometimes slow and steady, but they suceeded in undermining the foundation of the rights of women to control their bodies and of all of us to protect our health and to determine when and if we reproduce.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/17/2008 @ 4:49pm
cka: i agree that marginal cases are real issues but no SCOTUS is going to try to simply take out access to contraception or abortion basically anytime. the decision would be simply too disruptive. the rightist "power elite" if you want to call it that likes having the red flag of reproductive rights to wave in the face of its base just like Nancy Pelosi likes having the Iraq war to wave in our face. However, just as Nancy Pelosi certainly isn't going to help end the Iraq war, rightist politicians aren't going to ever go ever go after abortion/birth control for real. it would, again, just be too disruptive to business as usual.
clearly, yes, mccain is the far worse candidate for reproductive freedom, which itself will not be the big issue its been in the past because there are certain uglier matters (war; economic recession; degradation of constitutional rights) that will continue to eclipse reproductive freedom.
Posted by Zero at 07/17/2008 @ 6:53pm
Is it men alone who are the beneficiaries of medical plans that cover Viagra?
I imagine quite a few women count their lucky stars when their lover is under the influence of the magical pill. Of course, you'd never know it reading Katha Pollitt.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/17/2008 @ 7:18pm
"reproductive freedom, which itself will not be the big issue its been in the past because there are certain uglier matters (war; economic recession; degradation of constitutional rights) that will continue to eclipse reproductive freedom."
It may not be a big issue for you, but it is for me. During economic recession, war, and the degradation of constitutional rights, the last thing I need is a bunch of religious bigots deciding whether or not I can buy birth control at my local store or if I'm allowed emergency contraceptive at the hospital, instead of having to go to yet another hospital, if I happen to be raped. Those things may not matter to you, but having control over my own body is at the top of my list.
Posted by Sluckenbill at 07/17/2008 @ 7:25pm
Isn't there a difference between opposing contraception and voting against government mandated subsidies of contraception?
So because - wrongly in my opinion, by the way - McCain voted against requiring insurance plans to cover it like other drugs, Miss Pollitt skews that to read that McCain opposes contraception, and encourages us to pass on the lie.
Maybe this being a cheap-shot biased accusation explains why a Nexis search at the beginning of this week found only 61 mentions in print and on TV, Miss Pollitt.
McCain does so much wrong. Can't you just stick to the facts instead of lying? This should be a piece of cake.
And I have to say I would love to see Katha Pollitt debate Carly Fiorina on anything. Let's start by comparing resumes! LOL!
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/17/2008 @ 8:37pm
"Second, the reason Viagra is covered and OCPs are not is because Viagra is used to treat a boner fide medical condition (impotence)..."
Impotence is a medical condition? No it is not. It is a biological condition better known as "not being able to get it up." Men get frustrated when they can't be "real men" and thus resort to this drug. Meanwhile if they get artificial boners, or real ones, and knock up women, there should be no sort of item available to keep women from having a baby they may not want.
Man can't get dick up=need for welfare (our tax dollars fund about 55% of pharmaceutical companies' costs) so dick can get up. When dick gets up, the problem becomes a woman's.
Posted by onthehelm at 07/17/2008 @ 8:39pm
Sluckenbill, You'd be spot on, my friend, if McCain were advocating making contraceptives illegal.
But he's not and never has. So, what does that actually make your 7:25pm post?
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/17/2008 @ 8:40pm
Posted by onthehelm at 07/17/2008 @ 8:39pm
What a crude, knuckle-dragging way to make what is actually a valid point for the most part.
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/17/2008 @ 8:45pm
It seems that a lot of folks took Ms. Pollitt piece as if she were trying to encompass ALL of what is wrong with McCain on the issue of contraception. This wasn't a 20,000 word piece on the issue, it was design to highlight the almost complete lack of discussion in the media about this issue. If you want more information NARAL makes it pretty clear especially since they do us all the favor of providing quotes and article from McCain about his stance. He is either completely unaware and a blind follower of the right-wing anti-choice lobby or a scathingly right-wing anti-choice senator. Read for yourself and please learn how to read an article. http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/mccain.html
Posted by dadixon at 07/17/2008 @ 9:59pm
"if McCain were advocating making contraceptives illegal." "But he's not and never has. So, what does that actually make your 7:25pm post?"
McCain is basically saying aids for males to control their sexual life are valid, aids for females to control their sexual life are not valid. As a person who's very body is at stake here, that is a horribly dangerous statement to hear from a presidential candidiate.
The new potential HHS guidelines where Bush wants to equate the pill and the IUD with abortion is even more concerning. He wants to allow any nurse, pharmarcy worker, etc. who receive federal funding the right to refuse giving the pill and IUD on "moral" grounds. If Bush does it, McCain will do it too and that is dangerously close to outlawing birth control.
This is not a female-male issue, this is an issue that should concern all adults, all humans.
Posted by Sluckenbill at 07/17/2008 @ 10:12pm
"IF I refuse to FUND my older son's trip to France in August, am I Opposing the trip itself?"
If you refused to FUND your older's son trip to France but did FUND your daughter's trip to Spain, and then said that you didn't even remembering doing that and act like it wasn't a big deal, as your son, I'd definitely think you were unfair and wouldn't want to vote for you as my new parent in 2008.
Posted by Sluckenbill at 07/17/2008 @ 10:28pm
"That is not what he is saying. He is saying that medicines to TREAT a medical condition should be covered; pills that are not being used to treat a medical problem do not have to be covered."
Birth control prevents unwanted pregnancy, something both women and men benefit from. Pregnancy costs insurance companies thousands of dollars per child, far more than a year of birth control.
Viagra allows sexual relations in males who were not able to have a satisfying sex life, often because of natural aging or poor lifestyle decisions. While I agree that Viagra should also be covered, Viagra does not save the insurance companies money.
Pregnancy can be quite hard on a woman's health, often incurring further health costs. If a woman wants to limit her pregnanacies to maintain her health, improve her future children's health, and also have the same satifying sex life as the man using viagra is entitled, plus save the insurance company money, I don't see why the government would consider that a worse use of money than Viagra. Financially I don't see the logic in your argument.
Your argument seems to indicate that pregnancy is the natural outcome of sex for women and the government should punish women by making them pay for the right to have sex, even though it ends up actually COSTING taxpayers if women don't use birth control. However, the government should pay for men who are suffering from what many would consider a natural result of aging or the consequences of poor lifestyle decisions. This seems like government sanctioned bias to me, bias that isn't even finacially sound.
Ms. Pollitt's point was that the media should cover the discussion of this issue more during the election because people have a deep interest in it. Based on the many strong opinions stated here, I think she has a point.
Posted by Sluckenbill at 07/17/2008 @ 11:55pm
Funny how many words it take to make a LIE convincing for the illinformed! Must be the essense of leftwing jounalistic art! What ever happened to reporting on factual philisophical differences?
Posted by RedRiver_. at 07/18/2008 @ 12:33am
John McCain knows very little about many things that are important to Americans and the world. His range of ignorance is actually astounding, except when compared to that total ignoramus, GWB. I hope the American voters recognize this and do not burden us with another wasted and harmful four years.
Posted by lewweinstein at 07/18/2008 @ 01:24am
Because McCain is a multi millionaire and little Cindy Barbie Doll can afford contraception while she flies around in her private jet and drives her nascar. The news media is controlled by men, who really don't give a $#@! about women. How many women anchors are there? look at what they have done to Lara Logan or Christian Amanpour. What have they done to CBS? Katie Couric? Julie use to do more depth. What is wrong with here husband? Is this a power and control issue at work? The media has devoted itself to protecting the gated communities, while providing us with sensational car chases and titillating little glimpses of sexual deviants and hour long shows on prisons. Then we have the loud mouth slugs professing to know the answers to all our problems, ourselves. If we only all go out and get more education we can all get a job as greeters at Wal Mart.
Posted by julien38 at 07/18/2008 @ 02:49am
Dadixon, sluckenbill,
If katha's point was to talk about the lack of coverage of the issue...why did she title her post "MCCAIN OPPOSES CONTRACEPTION...PASS IT ON?" That is a complete DISTORTION of what the truth is (eh, who are we kidding? It's a bald-faced lie) so I think it's perfectly understandable that other posts correct her on it...as often has to happen with her. It's KP's own fault if people focus on her lies instead of what she intended the article to be about...My guess is that if she focused on telling the TRUTH, she would realize there is not much of a story there...Hmmmm, maybe that's why it's not being reported.
Posted by usc1 at 07/18/2008 @ 08:18am
Impotence is not a medical condition. Like another poster said, it is usually due to bad lifestyles choices, mental stresses of some kind, and/or age. If you want to be able to "get it up", eat better or eliminate your stresses. The virility of a man is in his hands and is not, in my opinion, a God-given right. Every man's path doesn't necessarily lead to the impregnation of a woman. Just like every woman's path doesn't necessarily lead to having children.
Posted by k330k at 07/18/2008 @ 08:32am
Ok, man gets insurance company to pay for Viagra. Man gets woman pregnant, out of wedlock, partly because her insurance does not cover contraception drugs and the condom fails (as they do far too often)
this will cost the insurance company and it's other insured more vastly more money than contraception drugs.
What if the Woman does not want baby. Do the ne0-cons support her right to have an abortion? If not, are they willing to take the child into their home?
Or, we could treat sex like the neo-cons treat their country asking them to go fight in Iraq, they just say NO.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/18/2008 @ 09:23am
***Despite all your twisting in knots trying to justify your side, the incontrovertible fact is that OCPs are elective pills (not treatment) and insurance companies and government should not be forced to cover them. Posted by plain bruce at 07/18/2008 @ 08:50am
But Viagra is not elective and SHOULD be covered?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/18/2008 @ 09:27am
A case can easily be made that neither should be covered by insurance if the co does not desire it. But I cannot find any internal logic to justify covering a mans desire to have sex, but not the womens desire to protect herself from pregnancy or to terminate a pregnancy.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/18/2008 @ 09:31am
usc1:
What exactly is the distortion? McCain *is* against contraception. NARAL advocates for issues concerning all matters around women's health which DOES include contraception. McCain has 0% voting record with NARAL and you are more than welcome to go to the link I provided.
Posted by dadixon at 07/18/2008 @ 12:23pm
Thanks, Katha. The real story here is McCain's false posture as a moderate and friend of women, something the mainstream media has done little to challenge. If the McCain "ponder" were flashed as many times as the "Dean scream," the public would be far more enlightened.
Posted by EllenBravo at 07/18/2008 @ 1:07pm
Pollitt is an oxygen thief. I should sue her for the 5 minutes of my life back that it took me to read this garbage.
Posted by jimmylove at 07/18/2008 @ 1:18pm
Just the usual leftist lies. There is zero evidence that McCain opposes contraception. Most conservatives are not opposed to contraception.
The issue is govt intervention into the decisions made by insurers. If an insurer wants to cover one condition or one type of prescription but not another, that is their business.
This is just another attempt by the left to insert govt into every facet of life.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/18/2008 @ 1:37pm
Posted by dadixon at 07/18/2008 @ 12:23pm
DaDix
Yeah, NARAL...there's an unbiased opinion...not. So far, McCain has voted pro-life on most issues dealing with abortion...no surprise there and I agree with him...BUT where does it say McCain is against the USE of contraception? Where does it say he wants to make it illegal? Umm...nowhere. Until you come up with that, you're just as big of a BS artist as Katha.
Posted by usc1 at 07/18/2008 @ 1:37pm
Look: McCain knows that the anti-choice movement has grown angrier and more radical over time, and that now they not only want to ban abortion, but to get rid of comprehensive sex education and to ban contraception. He may not support a ban on contraception up front, but he's totally willing to run to the right to win these people over to his camp. There's no amount of bending over and taking it that McCain isn't willing to do for the radical right. He was asked straight up by a reporter if condoms prevent HIV and <i>refused to answer the question</i> because he knows that the hard right doesn't want to be hearing the truth.
Posted by Amanda_Marcotte at 07/18/2008 @ 1:57pm
Viagra is, more than anything else, a gift to WOMEN.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 1:58pm
The Viagra thing is nothing but a front for an excuse to paint McCain as anti-woman. Do you really think that if McCain had also said that he didn't think Viagra should be covered by insurance either, that Pollitt's position would change? Please. She's nothing but a toe-tag angry feminist, and the title of her article clearly indicates her real agenda. She doesn't even try to hide it, despite what a lie it is. Shame on her.
What's ironic is that John McCain's sixteen year old daughter Bridget is a young lady whom he adopted in 1991 as an impoverished, abandoned, disabled baby girl from an orphanage in Bangladesh run by Mother Theresa, and has raised her as his own in a loving home ever since...making a selfless decision to give that girl a much better life than she was initially destined for.
If that's how anti-woman John McCain is, then perhaps we should ALL think about embracing anti-woman values!
Posted by jimmylove at 07/18/2008 @ 3:07pm
Viagra is, more than anything else, a gift to WOMEN.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 1:58pm
Not if your dick is little. No amount of Viagra can fix that problem.
Posted by k330k at 07/18/2008 @ 3:11pm
What's wrong with you all to prevent women to make real choices? Why shouldn't the insurance companies or the government or both subsidize women to do so? And that idiot McCain should know more about what he is doing? I feel that Katha is being maligned unfairly. She is certainly aware of the situation and should be supported in what she is saying.
Posted by Bea at 07/18/2008 @ 3:34pm
Viagra is, more than anything else, a gift to WOMEN.
--------
Not if your dick is little. No amount of Viagra can fix that problem.
Posted by k330k at 07/18/2008 @ 3:11pm
You sound like an authority on the matter.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 3:50pm
Let's start by comparing resumes! LOL!
Posted by freiheit1 at 07/17/2008 @ 8:37pm
I don't know what you know about Fiorina, but she's not too shrewed or she never would have bought Compaq when she was at the helm of HP.
Also, if she was so intelligent, she also wouldn't have been caught spying on her own employees and pretty much fired as result of the action.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/18/2008 @ 3:50pm
Medical insurance doesn't cover the cost of condoms, so why should it cover the cost of the pill?
"A year's worth of contraception can cost a woman $600," Pollitt whines.
Yeah, and a Louis Vuitton handbag can cost upwards of $1,500. I'm sure for a lot of women, simply cutting back on such big-ticket items will more than free up enough cash to pay for contraception.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 3:57pm
Most women just don't like guys with `tough' personas....except blacks whose culture and rap songs, demand it of their males.
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/18/2008 @ 12:06am
Happy, You may want to take that one back.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/18/2008 @ 3:59pm
Or, we could treat sex like the neo-cons treat their country asking them to go fight in Iraq, they just say NO.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/18/2008 @ 09:23am
Well said Crabster!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/18/2008 @ 4:03pm
Medical insurance doesn't cover the cost of condoms, so why should it cover the cost of the pill?
"A year's worth of contraception can cost a woman $600," Pollitt whines.
Yeah, and a Louis Vuitton handbag can cost upwards of $1,500. I'm sure for a lot of women, simply cutting back on such big-ticket items will more than free up enough cash to pay for contraception.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 4:05pm
I thought I'd pull this out of the article Kathy wrote above for the ring wing folks who evidently didn't read the article.
"So. John McCain is so opposed to contraception he voted against requiring insurance plans to cover it like other drugs, and either so indifferent to women's health and rights or just so out of it he doesn't even remember how he voted. That's the way to show American women you really care."
After reading that paragraph, McCain voted against covering contraceptives in insurance policies plain and simple. You right wingers can twist this around as much as you like, but the fact that McCain voted against the measure no matter how much you dispute the fact.
How women choose to vote on that is their own choice, but any thinking women would vote against McCain.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/18/2008 @ 4:15pm
If you are against abortion, then you should definitely be for birth control or you are a hypocrit.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/18/2008 @ 4:40pm
Medical insurance doesn't cover the cost of condoms, so why should it cover the cost of the pill? Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 4:05pm
That's easy. You don't need a prescription from a doctor to buy condoms but you do need a prescription from a doctor for birth control pills.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/18/2008 @ 4:49pm
Right On Katha! The anemic defense of McC by a bunch of conservative crybabies is pitiful. Yes, it is shameful how the mainstream media refuse to report almost everything unpleasant about McC, including his condescending attitude towrds women. McC is a misogynist. He courted Cindy openly while still married; he needed her $ ("This Bud's for who?") to finance his politcal career. His kids were so furious they stopped talking to him. He didn't try to hide his lust for Vickie Iseman. Of course he thinks access to Viagra (which regrettably is frequently used recreationally by men, like Limbaugh, who don't actually have ED) is worthy of insurance coverage, while birth control pills (which are frequently precribed to treat excessive bleeding & pain rather than merely as contraceptives) are not. McC cannot credibly present himself as a friend of women, & he has a price to pay. Face the music!
Posted by MedSchoolFaculty at 07/18/2008 @ 4:58pm
Hey MedSchoolFaculty and McCain hater...did you know that the McCains have a prenuptial agreement and their assets remain separate?
And did you know he is SO anti-woman enough to adopt an abandoned baby girl from a Bangladeshi orphanage who is now his 16 year old daughter Bridget?
I think it's time for YOU to face the music.
Posted by jimmylove at 07/18/2008 @ 5:03pm
Medical insurance doesn't cover the cost of condoms, so why should it cover the cost of the pill? Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 4:05pm
That's easy. You don't need a prescription from a doctor to buy condoms but you do need a prescription from a doctor for birth control pills.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/18/2008 @ 4:49pm
In fact, there are over-the-counter items that insurance companies WILL pay for, depending on the state plan you have, so the criterion of something being prescribed isn't necessarily relevant here.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 5:03pm
McC is a misogynist. He courted Cindy openly while still married; he needed her $ ("This Bud's for who?") to finance his politcal career.
Posted by MedSchoolFaculty at 07/18/2008 @ 4:58pm
Why did CINDY MCCAIN hook up with a married man? Was she not equally responsible for the adulterous affair?
Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 5:06pm
And may I remind the angry socialists here that insurance companies operate in the private sector? If they don't want to cover a particular medication or procedure, they shouldn't have to. That includes Viagra.
It has nothing to do with his personal position on contraception, contrary to what Pollitt wants to make us believe...but why would anyone take the time to ask him that question directly or to give him the benefit of the doubt? It's much more fun to paint him as an anti-woman war monger and to fawn over Obama like he's the second coming of Christ.
Posted by jimmylove at 07/18/2008 @ 5:11pm
In fact, there are over-the-counter items that insurance companies WILL pay for, depending on the state plan you have, so the criterion of something being prescribed isn't necessarily relevant here.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 5:03pm
It's a hell of a lot more relevant than the $1500 handbag you were talking about chosing over. I don't know any women who can afford a $1500 handbag.
You are also the one bringing up that men pay for condoms so women can just pay for birth control pills. Since a doctors prescription is involved in birth control pills it sure is relevant.
You are talking about birth control methods that aren't as reliable as the pill and you alone shouldn't be making the choice for what type of birth control women use.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/18/2008 @ 5:13pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/18/2008 @ 5:13pm
You don't know any women who buy designer handbags, or designer clothing, or who splurge on their hair, manicures, pedicures, skin peels, etc.?
Trust me. Such women exist. If they can fork over thousands of dollars on such things, they should be able to pay a few hundred every year for something as important as birth control pills.
A lot of people pay out of pocket for prescription drugs, by the way. If people can't afford to pay for contraception, maybe they should curb their sexual appetite.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 5:17pm
If they don't want to cover a particular medication or procedure, they shouldn't have to. That includes Viagra.
Jimmy, And us consumers have the right to not choose their insurance policies, right? So, do you think insurance companies should have the right to not cover child birth? How about cancer treatment since a lot of the people with cancer may die anyway?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/18/2008 @ 5:17pm
Jimmy, And us consumers have the right to not choose their insurance policies, right? So, do you think insurance companies should have the right to not cover child birth? How about cancer treatment since a lot of the people with cancer may die anyway?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/18/2008 @ 5:17pm
Wolfgang, I think most people would consider child birth and cancer treatment to be medically necessary, but would not place contraception in that category in most cases (acknowledging that sometimes it might be).
I suspect that any insurance company that didn't cover child birth and cancer treatment wouldn't last very long because because they wouldn't be able to attract customers, don't you? If an insurance company does not want to offer coverage for contraception, they have to suffer the consequences of the negative impact that might have on their business. It's called the free market.
I have to buy $300 orthodics every year at my own expense because my insurance provider does not cover them, regardless of any orthopedic surgeon or podiatrist who will tell them that I need them. I don't like it, but it doesn't mean that my rights are being violated or that I'm being discriminated against because I'm a man. It is merely a business decision that they are making.
Posted by jimmylove at 07/18/2008 @ 6:10pm
I was on line in my small, predominantly, white town in the New Jersey Shore region and I heard two women behind me talking about McCain. One said he didn't have the greatest record on women's rights. The other said, "Well, it's better than a lot of other politicians." One was unhappy Hillary was out of the running and Obama's name was never mentioned. Well, women better wake up and realize they better take another look at Obama because McCain is bad news for women in terms of health, politics, economics and discrimination issues. It's great to see Katha Pollitt writing a piece like this because more women need to learn the truth about McCain's atrocious record on contraception and basic economic issues, such as his support for a measure against Ledbetter. McCain is bad news for women's reproductive health and women's health and rights in general and I hope the Nation keeps running stories like this one.
Posted by denisedistephan at 07/18/2008 @ 6:42pm
Good point 2Happy. Where are all the women on these message boards that should be offended by the way that Obama talks to women? He not only called her "sweetie," but told her to "hold on a second sweetie" when she was trying to ask him a question while holding his finger up. Are you kidding me? How condescending. I can only imagine the firestorm on the left if McCain had been the candidate in that scenario instead of Obama.
Any man on these message boards that works in corporate America, conservative or liberal, that works in corporate America like I do can tell you that if we spoke to a woman like that in the workplace in 2008, our jobs would be in jeopardy...and that is no exaggeration. At a minimum, that sexist lack of professionalism would put a note in your human resource file and send your future trajectory at that company into flatline.
Posted by jimmylove at 07/18/2008 @ 7:11pm
jlove: "He not only called her 'sweetie,' but told her to 'hold on a second sweetie' when she was trying to ask him a question while holding his finger up. Are you kidding me? How condescending. I can only imagine the firestorm on the left if McCain had been the candidate in that scenario instead of Obama."
------
Why is "sweetie" such a big deal? Women (usually older) have called me "honey" and "sweetheart," and I always interpreted it simply as a term of endearment.
As for McCain, he once called his wife a "cunt" in public.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 7:17pm
That is how he addressed a woman in a professional setting, where a woman expects to be treated with the same respect as a man!
Write an email to that reporter and ask her if she interpreted that as a term of endearment or an insult. I guarantee you it pissed her off.
Posted by jimmylove at 07/18/2008 @ 7:24pm
I actually saw the YouTube clip of that incident, and truth be told, the reporter got right in Obama's face and came off a wee bit pushy. "Sweetie" in that instance was a gentle way of telling her to back off for a moment.
We can debate whether "sweetie" is still regarded as a term of endearment. We cannot debate whether the word "cunt" is.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 7:29pm
He could have addressed her as Madame, as Miss, or as nothing at all.
Again, what you call your lover in anger is different than how you handle a professional situation. Women call men worse things all the time...and only some of those women are anti-man! :)
I can't wait until the first time Barack Obama calls a female foreign leader or diplomat "honey" or "sweetie." We'll see if they agree with me, or agree with you.
Posted by jimmylove at 07/18/2008 @ 7:47pm
Sorry, but I think calling your wife a "cunt" in public is far worse than saying "hold on a second, sweetie" to a pushy and brash reporter.
Any foreign leader, especially Angela Merkel, would likely prefer a thousand "sweeties" any day to having to deal with the likes of George Bush or John McCain.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 9:27pm
Once again the Right wing Bush appeasers continue to slap each others behind with gleeful ignorance, like they just hit a sac fly in the bottom of the ninth... The article should point out (in my humble opinion) the MULTITUDE of examples of MCnasty putting the flacid appendage of the, uber-ultra-religocons of the right, in his gaping carcinogenic maw. Can you sheep see this..?? Dont you sad republobots see this ..?? Dosent it bother you to be tied to such ilk ..?? prolly not...
Ill pray to 3.6kilo baby Jesus for you...
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/18/2008 @ 10:12pm
Which is why Gramm is under the bus!
I don't think he was cut loose due to his Enron loop-hole.
I don't think he was cut loose because of his culpable role in the subprime loan crisis.
I don't even think he was cut loose due to calling our genuinely hurting tax paying citizens whiners because they are hurting due to the falling dollar, foreclosures, enormous gas prices, and dwindling retirement assets.
No--that's not what brought him down. What brought him down was the publicity around his soft-porn connections.
I think that that is what did it, because the Republicans have proven that they could care less about what affects our lives, but if it affects our political perspectives--well, that cannot be tolerated. Remember, it is all in the mind, what the psychology of the situation is while their propelling the propaganda.
Can't have the American people THINKING that the Republicans are condoning anything to do with SEX, because you know after all, any contraception is the same as having an abortion, and soft porn, after all, must be at the very least, encouraging non George Bush sanctioned sex--can't have that.
The American people can just suck it up when it comes to their pocketbook, but sex, now that is something that we just cannot tolerate when it comes to Republicans. (Thankfully when you look at those two!)
I can already hear you Republicans saying, "Ahhhh, he just resigned because he became a distraction due to those venomous Democrats who would not stop maligning this poor man who has led a dignified career!"
All I have to say about that is:
STOP WHINING!
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/19/2008 @ 02:11am
Dear Jimmy Love: Your laughable effort to defend McC runs afoul of reality. Your personal judgments about me are 100% off-base. Otherwise, you're OK. I don't hate McC. I could never hate another human being unless I was convinced that they had intentionally engaged in malicious behavior towards me. Contrast that with the non-stop hate-mongering of Rove's attack machine, and the websites currently smearing Obama. Or every statement from Ann Coulter. McC is a misogynist. He's the only candidate who called his wife a "Cunt" in public, and refused to respond when a minister in Iowa asked him (at a town hall meeting) to explain this inappropriate behavior. Unlike you (or W, & your fellow conservatives), open-minded people like myself realize that the world isn't all Black & White. Just doing a few good things doesn't negate the impact of a far larger number of bad deeds. Mussolini made the trains run on time! The totality of McC's record is anti-woman. A prenuptial agreement with a multimillionaire beer distributor's daughter who owns 8 homes, all of which he uses (and a private jet which he uses to violate the spirit, if not the letter of campaign laws), shows how arrogant & out-of-touch McC is when he blames working-class people for the mortgage meltdown by telling them to suck it up & get another job (What if they can't get one due to the Bush recession?). Jimmy, it's time to put up or shut up! I say McC has to face the music & accept that the women of America reject him because he treats them with contempt. You seem to believe that he is worthy of their support in spite of his abysmal record on issues . So, let's make a bet: If McCain gets 50% or more of the women's vote in Nov., you win; if he gets less than 50%, I win. At stake: $1,000 to be given by the loser to the charity of the winner's choice. I'm sure that T. Boone Pickens or Richard Mellon Scaife will underwrite you if you're afraid. There are words that describe the mental processes of people like you who cling to preformed opinions in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Narrow-minded, prejudiced, delusional, in denial- take your pick.
Posted by MedSchoolFaculty at 07/19/2008 @ 10:46am
In all of this mumbo jumbo I have yet to see any of the neo-cons address the core issue as laid forth in this article, McCain voted AGAINST a bill that would have required insurance companies to cover contraceptive drugs IF they covered drugs like VIAGRA. If they don't cover Viagra then they don't have to cover contraceptives. If they do cover Viagra they have to cover contraceptives.
So, neo-cons, why should they not be required to supply contraceptives to women whose men get their dick hard using drugs? They will cover her child birth bill, they will cover his prostate drugs, why not womens contraceptives? And if you believe so strongly that they should not have to cover both, how many children are you willing to care for when they are unwanted by their mothers and the stiff father?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/19/2008 @ 11:13am
I am bewildered by all the people coming on here to trash Pollitt and accuse her of "distortion." How is she distorting anything?
Many angry posters have asserted that refusing to fund something is not the same as "opposing" it. Bull! It's exactly the same. Bottom line is: everything in the USA costs money. If it gets paid for it happens. If it don't, it don't. End of story!
Only way we got out of 'Nam (if any of you, like myself, are creaky enough to remember) is when Congress ultimately refused to continue funding the war. (Incidentally, it's also the only way we're going to get out of Iraq.)
By McCain's saying "sure, birth control is okay but I oppose government funding for it" what he's saying is "whatever narrow (and ever narrower) slice of the country's economic pie can afford contraception out of their own pocket should be entitled to it; everyone else can go suck an egg." Hardly a ringing endorsement of reproductive freedom.
Grow up, you guys. For large masses of people in this country, no funding = denial of access. Period.
Posted by armadillojo at 07/19/2008 @ 1:09pm
Posted by armadillojo at 07/19/2008 @ 1:09pm
You answered your own question:
By McCain's saying "sure, birth control is okay but I oppose government funding for it"
He doesn't say you can't use it. He doesn't say he wants it illegal. He doesn't say you can't use other forms of birth control. He is saying he doesn't think the rest of America should have to pay for your "family planning."
Period. End of story.
Posted by usc1 at 07/19/2008 @ 1:33pm
uscz, you completed missed the point of my post. No funding = no access. By your own logical extension, kids with unemployed parents should be allowed to starve to death; individuals who cannot pay for private security police should have no protection from crime; those who cannot afford bottled water should be permitted to die of thirst. You think we should privatize everything?
Birth control is a necessity for millions of women, not a frill. And I would say it certainly behooves us all to pay for the far cheaper option oif public access to birth control and abortion as opposed to having to pay the economic and environmental price of untrammeled breeding.
Posted by armadillojo at 07/19/2008 @ 1:45pm
Posted by crabwalk at 07/19/2008 @ 11:13am
Well, I've been answering this question ad nauseum for the last three days. No one ever responded. After a while I realized that when I log out my posts disappear. So I thought that maybe no one else could see them either. Apparently, The Nation apparently doesn't like it when a poster can make one of their writers look foolish (Censorship, anyone?). At any rate, I re-registered under a new name to provide you with an abridged answer.
The reason OCPs are not covered is because they, in general, <i>are not</i> used as treatment for a medical condition. Viagra, on the other hand, <i>is</i> used for treatment of a medical condition and is therefore covered. When OCPs are used as treatment, they are usually covered.
There you have it.
Daily Comfort (formerly Plain Bruce)
Posted by dailycomfort at 07/19/2008 @ 2:32pm
Wow, reading these comments truly makes me laugh until I get to the ad nauseam tipping point and have no more time to waste - except for this comment to set you straight and hopefully free.
First, erectile DYSFUNCTION is a DYSFUNCTION of the body's normal process (I could explain the biochemical/glandular issues part of this to you but instead you can just go talk with your local internal med doc). So it is medically a condition to TREAT, NOT a condition where you STOP the NORMAL process of the body as in contraception (either the pill or vasectomy or condom).
onthehelm at 07/17/2008 @ 8:39pm -- you are wrong and probably need counseling for your anger mgmt and hatred of men issues.
KSP556 at 07/17/2008 @ 7:18pm -- GOT IT RIGHT. "I imagine quite a few women count their lucky stars when their lover is under the influence of the magical pill. Of course, you'd never know it reading Katha Pollitt."
Taking ED drugs allows a body part to function the way it should and did before the dysfunction and benefits both partners not just the man. When a woman looses the ability of say natural vaginal lubrication, or the ability to produce certain hormones after a hysterectomy, we have the ability to help correct that DYSFUNCTION. Covered by insurance the last time I checked. Same issue.
Contraception is a TOTALLY different issue and I wish people would stop beating all their idealogical war drums and confusing this with the actual facts.
freiheit1 at 07/17/2008 @ 8:37pm -- GOT IT RIGHT! "Isn't there a difference between opposing contraception and voting against government mandated subsidies of contraception? So because - wrongly in my opinion, by the way - McCain voted against requiring insurance plans to cover it like other drugs, Miss Pollitt skews that to read that McCain opposes contraception, and encourages us to pass on the lie."
And for those with all the animosity towards men and ED drugs; how selfish are you? One could make the argument that women get way more attention paid to their diseases than men (one example: breast cancer vs prostate cancer) and why wouldn't you want your husband, brother or father to receive the correct care through Erectile Dysfunction drugs? Why would you deprive yourself, sister-in-law or mother of her receiving the benefits of this care also?
So, if you have a bone to pick (no pun intended) make a cogent argument and leave the idealogical rantings and ravings at home (which BTW, make you sound just like the idealogical blowhards on FOX - the only difference being they are on the other side of the fence).
Katha - you have so many things that are off in your piece I won't even try to correct all of them.
But I will say this: When a person's argument is weak, they often resort to ad hominem tactics (definition: 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made). THIS sums up your whole argument - barely worthy of lining the bird cage.
Please make a more intellectual and compelling argument next time.
Just so you know, I am a Libertarian leaning Independent and feel a woman should have her choice of reproductive rights. But don't confuse the issues here - it only makes you look dumb and dumber.
Posted by kimasabe at 07/19/2008 @ 2:34pm
You sound like an authority on the matter.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/18/2008 @ 3:50pm
As a woman, I've been in the unfortunate position( pardon the pun) of having to deal with small dicks. In that case, an expert is not what I'm trying to be. LOL!
Posted by k330k at 07/19/2008 @ 5:26pm
Women, but specially middle income to poor women that can still pay for insurance or are granted one by their employer have the right to recover the costs of purchasing contraceptives (CC)from their insurances.
Women taking CC's (an overwhelming majority I believe) do it from their responsibility of not bringing another child to the world until they want to. It is not like someone said, that insurance should not pay for "family planning". I respond this is at the essence of women' s health, comfort and family well being. And darn is it important for single-parent women. It is at the core of a woman's right to have a sexual life with responsibility.
Why would an insurance company pay that? Well, medicine is not just about corrective actions but preventative too. We take all sorts of vitamines, or for example when our cholesterol is all right we still stick to statins so it will not jump up again. In essence, CC is a necessity for women's health.
Posted by Frank42 at 07/19/2008 @ 5:54pm
"First, erectile DYSFUNCTION is a DYSFUNCTION of the body's normal process (I could explain the biochemical/glandular issues part of this to you but instead you can just go talk with your local internal med doc). So it is medically a condition to TREAT, NOT a condition where you STOP the NORMAL process of the body as in contraception (either the pill or vasectomy or condom)."
Posted by kimasabe at 07/19/2008 @ 2:34pm
Very good point.
Pollitt approaches this and most other subjects with an anti-male bias. If she didn't have such contempt for men, she might be able to make fine distinctions such as the one above.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/19/2008 @ 6:47pm
As a woman, I've been in the unfortunate position(pardon the pun) of having to deal with small dicks. In that case, an expert is not what I'm trying to be. LOL!
Posted by k330k at 07/19/2008 @ 5:26pm
Ah, I see. Must be "hard" being attracted to men who turn out not to be so well endowed.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/19/2008 @ 7:19pm
Why would an insurance company pay that? Well, medicine is not just about corrective actions but preventative too. We take all sorts of vitamines, or for example when our cholesterol is all right we still stick to statins so it will not jump up again. In essence, CC is a necessity for women's health.
Posted by Frank42 at 07/19/2008 @ 5:54pm
1) Insurance doesn't pay for vitamins. 2) High cholesterol is a chronic disease and thus requires chronic <i>treatment</i>. 3) OCPs are not <i>required</i> for a woman to be healthy. They're not even required to prevent pregnancy.
Posted by dailycomfort at 07/19/2008 @ 10:53pm
Ah, I see. Must be "hard" being attracted to men who turn out not to be so well endowed.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/19/2008 @ 7:19pm
Ha! Clever, you are. Actually disappointing is more like it. It's a crap shoot. What's a girl to do?
On topic: I get that ED is considered a dysfunction although its not a health risk like high cholesterol. So why not allow OCPs to be sold over the counter? Just advise that the woman consult her physician like she would for a new diet plan. Thoughts?
Posted by k330k at 07/20/2008 @ 12:36am
1) Insurance doesn't pay for vitamins. 2) High cholesterol is a chronic disease and thus requires chronic <i>treatment</i>. 3) OCPs are not <i>required</i> for a woman to be healthy. They're not even required to prevent pregnancy.
I am flabbergasted about your constricted views about human health and its relationship with the environment. The fit integration of a human being with his/her environment is what defines well being...or you may even be "healthy" in a physical way but not in possession of well being because of say psychological problems.
Say, a mental condition, why do so many insurances actually pay for it? Are not they chronic conditions, but still not even physical or visible? Should not chronic conditions be treated as well, like diabetes or hypertension for years and years. What is the psychological importance of a healthy sex life? Paramount... and of not being worried to bring a child to the world? ...Aren't vaccines a preventative action as well??
Of course insurance does not pay for vitamins, but should not they at least when the person -due to another condition- can not take enough of some required nutrient?
What is the bottom line here? Is it about the profit of the insurance companies or the health of the individual in the broadest sense of the word? In the early days insurances were fixed on "serious illnesses", now - because of pressure of the public and medical staff - they look at preventative issues. Still today, they just don't want to pay, "routine things" (like these OTC's) because they would pay almost every women hurting their bottom line. And that is the whole issue you Republicans are for the money, we are for the people.
That premiums will be so much higher then, bla, bla....That is why the best thing to do is to have a national health care system. But that last assertion is again false. Every action that is preventative, ends saving money. A child that is not properly fed or cared to, will bring so much more costs to the health system...A woman spending 600 in OTC's could have a better use of her money buying the vitamins instead...Not that we would want either domestic violence because a baby is going to be born...insurance spends really big money when a birth takes place not to mention complications... and so, so... the bottom line is a woman takes it because she prevents much more damaging costs in her life if not taking it; therefore it is necessary.
"OCP's are not required to prevent pregnancy." ...that is a pearl of yours. Are you suggesting the rhythm method? Or the condom? I guess not the condom, too liberal, the rhythm method. Go ask the doctors about its efficacy please.
Finally, erectile dysfunction (ED) and OTC's. As discussed, healthy sex life is paramount. "ED is a condition"...bla, bla, the selfishness of conservatives again into play. ED is partly organic, the other part is, many of times, just psychological, just about relaxing. It is very clear to me that if it is all about doing sex without disturbing thoughts from both, well both need to take their meds. Period.
Posted by Frank42 at 07/20/2008 @ 04:09am
Well one could argue that not having an erection when one is not intending to procreate is not actually a dysfunction. Perhaps this is just the body telling someone that they're done creating little ones. Therefore I would argue that it is exactly the same thing. How is having sex when you do not want to procreate different from having sex when you do not want to procreate, other than one harbors the budding infant and one does not.
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/20/2008 @ 04:20am
Health care is a right. Contraception is health care. Ergo...
It is outrageous that I can pay so much money for my health care and not have contraception included in its prescription coverage.
This issue should concern every heterosexually active and fertile person!
Congress knows the insurance companies have to be pushed to do the right thing. But McCain is still holding out hope that the "market" will correct itself. This is a bankrupt position. "Free markets" got us the subprime swindle and Enron before that.
Posted by KMS56 at 07/20/2008 @ 07:01am
Posted by KMS56 at 07/20/2008 @ 07:01am
Health care is not a right unless you believe you have a right to the services of others. That's called slavery.
Contraception is not a treatment, but we keep going in circles on that one.
Posted by dailycomfort at 07/20/2008 @ 07:31am
Well one could argue that not having an erection when one is not intending to procreate is not actually a dysfunction. Perhaps this is just the body telling someone that they're done creating little ones. Therefore I would argue that it is exactly the same thing. How is having sex when you do not want to procreate different from having sex when you do not want to procreate, other than one harbors the budding infant and one does not.
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/20/2008 @ 04:20am
I can't decide which argument to use:
1)I would argue that pregnancy is the body telling you that it is not done creating little ones. Thus OCPs should not be given because they are getting in the way of the body's natural function.
or
2)If I use your logic, then medicines for hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, breast cancer, or just about any disease or health problem should not be covered because that is just the body telling you what its natural state should be.
Posted by dailycomfort at 07/20/2008 @ 07:41am
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/20/2008 @ 04:20am
Good point.
"Health care is not a right unless you believe you have a right to the services of others. That's called slavery." Posted by dailycomfort at 07/20/2008 @ 07:31am
Oh come on. Stretching it a wee bit, aren't you? Slavery? Please. Interesting though because just like the insurance industry, slavery was about profit margins as well.
Posted by k330k at 07/20/2008 @ 07:43am
And what makes you think that people using Viagra aren't intending to procreate?
Posted by dailycomfort at 07/20/2008 @ 07:43am
It's not a stretch at all. What do you call it when you believe you have a RIGHT to the services of others? Think about it.
Posted by dailycomfort at 07/20/2008 @ 07:44am
"I am flabbergasted about your constricted views about human health and its relationship with the environment. The fit integration of a human being with his/her environment is what defines well being...or you may even be "healthy" in a physical way but not in possession of well being because of say psychological problems."
Well, it's not the insurance companies job to take care of the environment. It is their job to make medical TREATMENT available to people.
"Say, a mental condition, why do so many insurances actually pay for it? Are not they chronic conditions, but still not even physical or visible? Should not chronic conditions be treated as well, like diabetes or hypertension for years and years."
All of those chronic conditions are medical diseases/dysfunctions. Desire not to get pregnent is not a disease or dysfunction.
"...Aren't vaccines a preventative action as well??"
Yes, but they prevent a DISEASE. Pregnancy is not a disease. It is a NATURAL result of sex.
"Of course insurance does not pay for vitamins, but should not they at least when the person -due to another condition- can not take enough of some required nutrient? "
I would agree with you on this point, that if a person has a medical condition that requires supplementation with vitamins, then that vitamin should be covered, but this is consistent with my stance that insurance companies cover medicines for treatment.
"What is the bottom line here? Is it about the profit of the insurance companies or the health of the individual in the broadest sense of the word? In the early days insurances were fixed on "serious illnesses", now - because of pressure of the public and medical staff - they look at preventative issues. Still today, they just don't want to pay, "routine things" (like these OTC's) because they would pay almost every women hurting their bottom line."
That premiums will be so much higher then, bla, bla....That is why the best thing to do is to have a national health care system. But that last assertion is again false. Every action that is preventative, ends saving money. A child that is not properly fed or cared to, will bring so much more costs to the health system...A woman spending 600 in OTC's could have a better use of her money buying the vitamins instead...Not that we would want either domestic violence because a baby is going to be born...insurance spends really big money when a birth takes place not to mention complications... and so, so... the bottom line is a woman takes it because she prevents much more damaging costs in her life if not taking it; therefore it is necessary."
I would go through this point by point, but time is limited. Suffice it to say that it is filled with hogwash, assumptions, and irrelevancies.
"OCP's are not required to prevent pregnancy." ...that is a pearl of yours. Are you suggesting the rhythm method? Or the condom? I guess not the condom, too liberal, the rhythm method. Go ask the doctors about its efficacy please."
I don't need to ask anyone. The key word is "required." Birth control pills are not REQUIRED.
"Finally, erectile dysfunction (ED) and OTC's. As discussed, healthy sex life is paramount. "ED is a condition"...bla, bla, the selfishness of conservatives again into play. ED is partly organic, the other part is, many of times, just psychological, just about relaxing. It is very clear to me that if it is all about doing sex without disturbing thoughts from both, well both need to take their meds. Period."
A healthy sex life is important in many relationsihps. When a woman has a condition that interferes with that, then treatments for said conditions should be treated. Guess what? They are. Unfortunately for your argument, desire not to get pregnant is not a medical condition.
"the selfishness of conservatives again into play"
I had to pull this quote out specifically. When you result to baseless attacks such as this, it shows that you have lost the debate. You can't counter our position, so you resort to ad hominems. (BTW, since my wife takes OCPs, I would actually benefit from their coverage. I guess I'm not so selfish after all.)
Posted by Frank42 at 07/20/2008 @ 04:09am
Posted by dailycomfort at 07/20/2008 @ 08:27am
The fact is that McCain has criticized Supreme Court justices for their references to "penumbras," and has said that he will appoint justices who have as little patience for those decisions as Samuel Alito does. In other words, McCain does not agree with Griswold v. Connecticut and will appoint justices who share his view. Ms. Pollitt is not exaggerating when she says McCain opposes contraception.
Posted by magh at 07/20/2008 @ 11:50am
It is not quite the same. Hypertension and breast cancer are life threatening. Not having sex is not. Not only that, but contraceptives are often used for medical conditions, such as polycystic ovaries.
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/20/2008 @ 3:14pm
ksp556 @ 5:17pm,
The same could be said of the Viagra guys!
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/20/2008 @ 3:38pm
"It is not quite the same. Hypertension and breast cancer are life threatening. Not having sex is not."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. It sounds as if you are coming over to our side, but that can't be. :)
"Not only that, but contraceptives are often used for medical conditions, such as polycystic ovaries."
Already answered--when OCPs are used for TREATMENT, they are usually covered (and should be).
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/20/2008 @ 3:14pm
Posted by dailycomfort at 07/20/2008 @ 4:44pm
The same could be said of the Viagra guys!
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/20/2008 @ 3:38pm
Well, last I checked, the "Viagra guys" aren't writing columns whining about some politician's stance on contraception.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/20/2008 @ 8:44pm
Ah, I see. Must be "hard" being attracted to men who turn out not to be so well endowed.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/19/2008 @ 7:19pm
Ha! Clever, you are. Actually disappointing is more like it. It's a crap shoot. What's a girl to do?
On topic: I get that ED is considered a dysfunction although its not a health risk like high cholesterol. So why not allow OCPs to be sold over the counter? Just advise that the woman consult her physician like she would for a new diet plan. Thoughts?
Posted by k330k at 07/20/2008 @ 12:36am
You probably wish you had x-ray vision, so that every time a new man came into your life you could see straightaway whether his package were sufficient or not.
I don't know why OCPs aren't sold over the counter, apart from the obvious conjecture that they pose serious side effects if misused. If I'm not mistaken, women over the age of 18 can get EC pills over the counter, so I can't explain the FDA's thinking here.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/20/2008 @ 9:02pm
You know what is NOT natural? Intense, horrific menstrual pains that laid me up for two days every month before I started taking the pill. I've been taking it for a year now, and I am still a virgin (wow, looking at me curbing my sexual appetites or something), and I can actually GO TO CLASS now instead of heading to the infirmary, taking multiple forms of pain reliever at the same time, and still being racked with pain for hours every time I start my period.
And this is one of the smaller medical problems that women treat with birth control pills.
My family pays fifty dollars out of pocket every month to control my pain so that I can work and go to class. As a student, I can't afford a designer bag. Seriously? I hardly know ANYONE who can, and I go to an expensive private school. This summer, I can barely afford my food and rent. Yes, women who can afford those bags can afford birth control. No one is disputing that those women exist, but by bringing them up to suggest that ALL women economize on such luxuries to afford birth control one implies that all women spend thousands every year on upkeep, which is patently untrue. We don't ask for birth control to be covered just so that rich women don't have to pay for their birth control - we ask so that people who don't have excessive wealth can also benefit from birth control.
The ignorance in this thread is astonishing. I suggest some actual research on conditions that are treated with birth control pills, many of which definitely qualify as "medical."
Posted by periwinkle at 07/21/2008 @ 05:00am
ksp556,
You are coming across as a real dufas. Sorry, but, DUH! They're not because they are
COVERED!
You just don't get it. We could write mountains of evidence and reason until we all had nosebleeds and you would not get it.
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/21/2008 @ 05:14am
Prairie, you sound a little hysterical this morning. Scroll up and carefully read what was written. Try taking a couple of deep breaths before posting next time, too.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/21/2008 @ 07:37am
Posted by periwinkle at 07/21/2008 @ 05:00am
Did I ever say that birth control pills AREN'T indicated for medical reasons such as the one you describe?
I obviously know that there are college-aged women of very modest means who cannot afford designer handbags. But I also know that there are plenty of women out of school who do buy them, and who spend lavish amounts of money on their hair, nails, makeup and wardrobe. They belong to the same socioeconomic class as the woman who wrote the article above.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/21/2008 @ 07:47am
You probably wish you had x-ray vision, so that every time a new man came into your life you could see straightaway whether his package were sufficient or not.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/20/2008 @ 9:02pm
Don't I know it!
Posted by periwinkle at 07/21/2008 @ 05:00am
My college roommate had the sam eproblem in highschool which is why she started taking birth control. She told of her vomiting fits, killer pain and resulting dehydration.
Posted by k330k at 07/21/2008 @ 08:02am
Pregnancy is a medical condition, and it frankly doesn't matter whether it is a "natural" result of sex or not. As a medical condition, it can often cause serious health problems and cost lots of money. Anything that can prevent such a potentially dangerous and expensive medical condition that is not cheap or that requires a prescription - in other words, not condoms - should be covered by health insurance. Pregnancy prevention by pharmaceutical (e.g., the pill) or medical means (e.g., the IUD) falls within the logical purview of health insurance plans.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/21/2008 @ 12:02pm
Posted by KSP556 at 07/21/2008 @ 07:47am
It doesn't seem that Ms. Politt uses lavish amounts of money on hair and makeup. I'm just saying...
Posted by k330k at 07/21/2008 @ 12:20pm
It doesn't seem that Ms. Politt uses lavish amounts of money on hair and makeup. I'm just saying...
Posted by k330k at 07/21/2008 @ 12:20pm
Well you certainly have a point there! If I had to guess (I don't know for a fact), I'd say she's probably one of those feminists who see make-up and other embellishments as a bad thing, since one of the aims is to look pretty in the eyes of men. (Two bad things there: pretty and men.)
But note that I never said Pollitt is one of those women. I said she belongs to the same socioeconomic group as those women who do make the trip to Louis Vuitton to buy those expensive handbags.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/21/2008 @ 1:10pm
But note that I never said Pollitt is one of those women. I said she belongs to the same socioeconomic group as those women who do make the trip to Louis Vuitton to buy those expensive handbags.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/21/2008 @ 1:10pm
LOL! I know. I was just making a funny.
Posted by k330k at 07/21/2008 @ 2:44pm
Wow. Just wow.
I don't see how Katha's appearance has anything to do with John McCain's ignorance about birth control and health care.
I was one of those girls who had the really bad cramps for two days every month. The kind that meant I took too many over the counter pain killers and still couldn't sleep. And I put up with that pain for 10 years because my very conservative parents were worried that if I took birth control pills even for treatment of serious pain I was jeopardizing my morality.
I was so relieved when I finally had my own insurance and I could tell my doctor about my health concerns and I could get contraceptives for a reasonable price. (Only $30 a month.) If birth control were only covered in cases like mine, then my doctor might have questioned my motives for telling her I had awful cramps. (And like pregnancy, my cramps were natural too. My parents really thought I should just put up with them. )
Women don't need to be treated with suspicion for seeking medical care. Most women use birth control at some point in their lives. And it is so important that it be available when they need it. Unplanned pregnancy can be a real burden on society (especially in a society where we don't even guarantee that women will have paid time off after giving birth). There are plenty of other medical benefits for women who take the pill. It lowers the risk of ovarian and uterine cancers. It helps women to regulate their cycles. It can reduce acne. It makes life better for so many women.
John McCain really needs to educate himself about this hugely important public health issue. At the very least he should be able to articulate his reasons for his position.
Posted by mck at 07/21/2008 @ 3:19pm
Brava, mck, Brava!
Posted by cka2nd at 07/21/2008 @ 3:33pm
Posted by cka2nd at 07/21/2008 @ 12:02pm
Posted by mck at 07/21/2008 @ 3:19pm
"And it is so important that it be available when they need it"
Once again, birth control is still available, OCPs and otherwise. You folks need to quit pretending that OCPs are the only form of it.
Regardless, it still doesn't answer the point that OCPs in general are not used for treatment of any medical disease/dysfunction. And, once again, DESIRE TO NOT GET PREGNANT IS NOT A MEDICAL DISEASE.
No one disputes that pregnancy and children are very expensive, but it is an irrelevant point.
Posted by dailycomfort at 07/21/2008 @ 5:42pm
Dear MedSchoolFaculty,
Sorry for the delay in responding, but I was spending the weekend drinking, carousing, and being anti-woman. But don't worry, I paid for the birth control protection I used at my own expense because the clerk at 7-Eleven insisted that the government does not force him to give them to me for free.
Since most liberals' outrage over the New Yorker cover demonstrated that they are not smart enough to identify satire, let me just be safe and spell it out for you...my weekend story was satire too. Since their response also demonstrated their lack of a sense of humor, you probably didn't laugh at the story anyway.
But I digress. I think it's ironic how you accuse me of being off base in my "personal judgment" of you, when 1) I never made any personal judgments of you (please feel free to point out the citation that backs your claim), and 2) you turn around and call me narrow-minded, prejudiced, delusional, and in-denial.
I believe THOSE are personal judgments, and not very nice ones. Thank you for offering a glowing example of the hypocrisy of the left in this country.
As far as your bet goes, it's not a bet I will take because I think there's a very good chance you'll be right...more than 50% of women will vote for Obama. And frankly, I don't base my values, beliefs, and decisions on poll data or election results. Since there have only been 2 Democrats elected to the White House in the last 40 years, that unequivocally makes more than 50% of American voters in recent history Republicans. Should that makes YOU a conservative? Should that offer proof that conservative philosophy is "right?" Should that make you concede your opinions or change your beliefs? I hope not.
The women in MY life, the women that are closest to me that I love and matter to me most...are voting for McCain. I guess that makes them narrow-minded, prejudiced, delusional, in denial, and even anti-woman too. Right?
Posted by jimmylove at 07/21/2008 @ 8:51pm
KSP556,
Not hysterical, exasperated. Honestly, with someone as convinced as you there is no point in arguing. This is absolutely an unfair policy.
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/21/2008 @ 9:47pm
Debber, Someone as "convinced" as I am? You have a habit of uttering non sequiturs.
Did you scroll up as I asked? If so, you'd see that the issue raised was not whether some contraceptives are covered by insurance or not, but whether oral contraceptives should be sold over the counter.
I asked a female friend of mine who happens to be a pharmacist why an EC like Plan B is available over the counter for women over 18 but oral contraceptives are not. She said that there's still a serious concern that oral contraceptives can cause clotting, which in turn can lead to stroke. Until the manufacturers of OCs can establish a better safety profile, the drugs will still require a prescription.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/21/2008 @ 10:04pm
"the high-end media"
what the hell is that?
p.s. hi katha.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/21/2008 @ 11:51pm
Regardless, it still doesn't answer the point that OCPs in general are not used for treatment of any medical disease/dysfunction.
Posted by dailycomfort at 07/21/2008 @ 5:42pm
Oral Contraceptives (OCs)
OCs, which contain estrogen and progestins, directly affect how much androgen your body produces and can therefore impact acne. Possible ways that estrogens may be working to improve acne include:
Decreased production of adrenal (DHEA-S) and ovarian androgens (A, T); Inhibition of the enzyme 5-alpha-reductase, which leads to a reduction of DHT levels; SHBG increase, which reduces levels of testosterone. Progestins vary in their androgenic or testosterone-like activity and may, therefore, have variable effects on acne. Progestins with the lowest androgenic activity are more appropriate in the treatment of acne and other disoders caused by increased androgen levels (desogestrel, norgestimate). Alternatively, cyproterone acetate - an antiandrogenic progesterone derivative - may be combined with the estrogen component.
Currently available OCs such as Diane-35®, Tri-Cyclen®, Alesse®, and Yasmin® contain progestins with minimal androgenic or anti-androgenic activity, providing an important therapeutic option for women with acne. Their proven effectiveness and long-term safety profile supports their use in various grades of acne in females:
as additional therapy with topical agents for women who have mild, non-scarring acne and who desire oral contraception; as primary therapy in moderate, non-scarring acne in combination with topical therapy and systemic antibiotics; in scarring and severe inflammatory acne as one of two preferred methods of contraception in patients treated with systemic isotretinoin. Clinical studies in acne patients treated with Tricyclen and Alesse show that acne spots were reduced by 40-50% over a course of 6 months. The extent of improvement may be greater with Diane-35 as patients in a Canadian acne survey generally considered Diane-35 to be more effective for treating acne than Tricyclenâ. Side effects common to all oral contraceptive preparations included breast tenderness, headache, and nausea. These were typically mild and tended to resolve by the second cycle. A newly approved oral contraceptive in Canada, Yasminâ, has been shown to be as effective as Diane-35â for treating acne.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/21/2008 @ 11:57pm
FZ:
What is your point? It's already established that OCPs are used for treatment of some problems, which is why I used the phrase "in general." The debate is over whether or not they should be paid for as contraception.
Posted by dailycomfort at 07/22/2008 @ 06:58am
I don't see how Katha's appearance has anything to do with John McCain's ignorance about birth control and health care. Posted by mck at 07/21/2008 @ 3:19pm
It wasn't. Hence it being a joke. Maybe not as funny to some but still a joke. I'm sorry but Ms. Pollit rubs me the wrong way. It probably stems from her position regarding secularism versus religion. Kinda pissed me off. Since then I've been hard-pressed to view her in a positive light. Awright, fine. I could apologize but I wouldn't mean it. Eventually I'll let it go. However I do agree that birth control should be covered. They are expensive as hell. I prefer condoms. Less drain on the pocketbook.
Posted by k330k at 07/22/2008 @ 07:55am
Oops. I mean "It doesn't".
Posted by k330k at 07/22/2008 @ 07:58am
I prefer condoms. Less drain on the pocketbook.
Posted by k330k at 07/22/2008 @ 07:55am
less drain on the sheets, too.
(sorry, couldn't let that one slip away)
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 10:14am
The debate is over whether or not they should be paid for as contraception.
Posted by dailycomfort at 07/22/2008 @ 06:58am
hell yeah.
prevention is always better than the "cure".
plus, a hospital birth costs about $10,000. with contraception at $50/month, that's 16 years of contraception.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 10:19am
Slow summer day Ms. Pollitt? John McCain doesn't remember a distant vote that may or may not have put 'the pill' off govt reimbursement and that means he's against contraception? Wow. So with that shoehorn I suppose it's not a leap to call Obama a right wing militia nutball since his cop-out on the much publicized D.C. gun law, saying he wasn't familiar with it. Never mind the larger problem that if anyone wanted to review Obama's voting record from his recent Chicago days they find that, well, they can't.
Posted by hughm88 at 07/22/2008 @ 12:01pm
Katha Pollitt is always at her best brandishing cudgels upon the heads of big media. Why? Because her usual modus operandi is to pose rhetorical questions in such a way as to make the reader whether she---who after all is a Harvard grad---realizes how rhetorical her questions are. Take this instance. She asks why big media aren't proclaiming loud and long that John McCain is hostile to contraception. Is she really so dense not to know that such hostility on the part of any serious GOP candidate is common knowledge? If I owned a newspapaer, I wouldn't bother pointing that out. What's next, telling America Barack Obama is against racism? Of course, Pollitt isn't this dense by any means. She's simply aghast that cretinous troglodytes like McCain exist and angry that women msut spend an amount roughly equivalent to car insurance payments (often far less) and hasn't the talent to find an original way to voice these sentiments.
Posted by DP in TC at 07/22/2008 @ 12:14pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 10:19am
Wow...that's damned expensive...maybe women should be thankful that they only have to pay $20-30/month instead of tens of thousands for pregnancy, birth, and raising a child. Yep, they're coming out waaaaay ahead...so stop whining.
Posted by usc1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:51pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 10:14am
LOL!
Posted by k330k at 07/22/2008 @ 1:58pm
Posted by mck at 07/21/2008 @ 3:19pm
Okay how's this. Ms. Pollitt has adorable dimples. Hmmm....that has nothing to do with John McCain either. Oh well, I gave it a shot.
Posted by k330k at 07/22/2008 @ 2:15pm
Posted by usc1 at 07/22/2008 @ 1:51pm
good luck.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 2:35pm
Once again, birth control is still available, OCPs and otherwise. You folks need to quit pretending that OCPs are the only form of it.
Regardless, it still doesn't answer the point that OCPs in general are not used for treatment of any medical disease/dysfunction. And, once again, DESIRE TO NOT GET PREGNANT IS NOT A MEDICAL DISEASE.
No one disputes that pregnancy and children are very expensive, but it is an irrelevant point.
Posted by dailycomfort at 07/21/2008 @ 5:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
If you re-read my post, you will notice that I described pregnancy as a medical condition, not a disease, and that I did not describe the "desire to not get pregnant" in medical terms at all.
But thank you for shouting.
Oh, and I mentioned condoms and the IUD in addition to the pill, so I wasn't exactly pretending that there was only one kind of birth control out there.
But thank you for shouting.
And I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the cost of providing health care was not a relvent factor in debating what should be covered by health insurance, and that you were the unilateral "decider" on this issue.
But thank you for shouting.
Now, pregnancy affects a woman's health, sometimes in a deleterious fashion. It can also cost her, and her insurance carrier, a lot of money. If she wants to prevent it, if she wants to exerecise some reasonable control over the health of her own body and, in the process, save herself and society some money, than bully for her. It should be her right, she should be empowered to do so, and screw all of the sexist sophistry and bullshit to the contrary.
Personally, by the way, I hope mck has six or seven kids. I love big families myself, and we need good progressive, radical parents and kids to balance out all of the fundamentalists, creationists and sundry other nutjobs out there.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/22/2008 @ 3:08pm
you are a moron.
Posted by peter4263 at 07/22/2008 @ 3:26pm
Personally, by the way, I hope mck has six or seven kids. I love big families myself, and we need good progressive, radical parents and kids to balance out all of the fundamentalists, creationists and sundry other nutjobs out there.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/22/2008 @ 3:08pm
no