freakoutnation.com — Republicans have stated that the President’s mandate to provide health insurance coverage for birth control, is not part of an ongoing war against woman. Let’s delve into this. More than half of Viagra prescriptions were afforded health care insurance weeks after entering the U.S. market in 1998 yet women had to pay for birth control. It wasn’t until 20o2 that New York became the 20th state requiring that insurers and employers provide contraceptive coverage.
Feb 16, 2012 View in Crawl 4
anomaly100Feb 16, 2012
Simple. No birth control, no erections! Problem solved! (tell Larry Craig to stay out of the men's room)
raggsat98Feb 16, 2012
Contraception is not the issue. The Government being able to mandate is the the issue.
anomaly100Feb 16, 2012
You didn't RTA did you Rags?
dirtyfriesFeb 16, 2012
Would it matter if they did?
anomaly100Feb 16, 2012
Nah! Not a bit.
leonard2Feb 16, 2012
He probably didn't and with good reason.
skywiseFeb 17, 2012
Why? Do you need more adhits to your site?
pc25Feb 17, 2012
of course she does. Inflation must be catching up with Madam Mao.
barackalypseFeb 17, 2012
I did, perhaps you can explain to me how availability of a drug that treats erectile dysfunction has anything to do with contraception (which has the totally opposite effect). I know you why to be able to claim the Church is a bunch of anti-woman hypocrites, but the fact is they oppose vasectomies and condoms as much as they oppose female contraception.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
utinamFeb 17, 2012
Because they're fine with helping men enjoy THEIR sex lives but oppose women enjoying theirs. Or do you think every woman must resign herself to being perpetually pregnant just because she wants to have a vibrant sex life with her SO?
clitniblr036Feb 17, 2012
Those butt holes the Duggars seem to firmly believe in this.
u2canfailFeb 17, 2012
You are promoting a GAY LIFESTYLE for all men. Women are to place an aspiring between their legs, so they can't be used. Where is the MALE to place his erect penis? Only other men.
u2canfailFeb 17, 2012
No "added cost" was the issue, and who pays for it, according to the Church. One small problem is birth control pills save an insurer cash. No prenatal care, And they are prescribed for many other women's health issues, besides pregnancy control.
I am for ending all health insurance through employers, altogether, if that is an option here. Universal Care has proven itself.
austrologiFeb 17, 2012
how about people pay for their own s**t? That is timeless.. I want something I go work for it.
u2canfailFeb 18, 2012
You are saying, you do not believe in insurance, sir?
I want something, I work for it.
Have a heart attack, and then ask for time to work for the cash to pay the bill.
Send a digg notice first, we can attend your funeral.
DiggPiggletFeb 17, 2012
Viagra is mostly used by older men and their older wives. Their older wives don't need contraception.
I don't think Viagra is a good analogy to women's birth control.
Even with younger people one prohibits unwanted pregnancy and the other would cause unwanted pregnancy. Both parents are still responsible for the pregnancy either way.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 17, 2012
Actually it is. Because erectile dysfunction is by far the most expensive offering for sex by insurers. As I remember it, the Catholic Church is basing their response on "cost and payment issues".
????
There is no other reason, other than sex, to have Viagra/others to be covered, no other health benefit. On birth control pills, they are prescribed for many other female health issues, besides birth control, sir.
savetheseaFeb 17, 2012
Seems that everyone assumes that only single women use contraception. Why should a married couple with a couple of kids live in constant fear of having another? In a lot of cases, the extra kid may push the couple into poverty which will then land them on welfare.
This is such a hypocritical, self-righteous, male dominated debate
u2canfailFeb 17, 2012
Ex Catholic here, used birth control without "confessing the use" while a Catholic too. It seemed we liked sex a lot, but had enough children.
As most today will tell you, they too use birth control. Finally just left the HOLY s**t Church nonsense behind. Now, I despise them, child abuse? Sanctioned by GOD or SATAN?
elephantstompFeb 17, 2012
Unrelated .., but someday Viagra may be used to treat asthma.
u2canfailFeb 18, 2012
Really? I hadn't heard that one at all, is it a side effect?
angelofchaos99Feb 16, 2012
Hey, male religious right: Maybe the lack of a boner is God's way of telling you that you have cardiovascular disease and you probably shouldn't be having a child right now (even if your partner is still fertile).
Actually, if you need viagra to get boners then chances are you're an older male. Chances are also that your wife is older and menopausal. There's no chance of actually "welcoming life" through sex at this point, so it's actually recreational. Doesn't your god frown upon recreational sexual activities?
crashdvisFeb 17, 2012
What? What the hell was that post? Is it somehow related to the article?
FrankLuskaFeb 17, 2012
angelofchaos99 definitely has the ramblings of a feeble mind.
CaptainobliviousFeb 17, 2012
His comment really didnt make sense to you?
u2canfailFeb 17, 2012
You forget, older males, many rich ones, only like younger women? Trump, for example.
But I do agree, perhaps erectile dysfunction is God's way on ending a problem. Even a child molesting Priest can be stopped from penetration, at some point.
morgansherrFeb 17, 2012
"Even a child molesting Priest can be stopped from penetration, at some point."
Bulls**t. Hands, fingers, mouth, objects.. anything can be used to molest a child. Penises and erections are not required.
u2canfailFeb 17, 2012
Wow, You make such a point, so you want to work for the Catholic Church?
morgansherrFeb 17, 2012
No. Unfortunately I was molested as a child so I know what the pervs are capable of.
u2canfailFeb 18, 2012
I am so sorry to hear that. I do wish you a "great life" today. Free from oppression and abuse.
californicatorFeb 16, 2012
It should be noted that birth control pills reduce some forms of cancer, endometrosis, PMS, and acne.
Viagra just gives you a hard-on, and is often used by your frendly neighborhood pedophile/rapist.
Way to pick a side, righties!
davidnivenFeb 17, 2012
Where did you hear THAT junk science?
jphrFeb 17, 2012
Goes to show that using too much Viagra let you go deaf too.
californicatorFeb 17, 2012
http://www.livestrong.com/article/31023-advantages-taking-birth-control-pills/
References:
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Oxford Journals Human Reproductive Update
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
I can find more sites, but I would be wasting my time; facts never get in the way of many "rightie" arguments.
barackalypseFeb 17, 2012
Except I don't recall any "righties" advocating that the Government should force insurance companies to cover Viagra. If you did, please feel free to link that so I can go call them a hypocrite if they're on the opposite side here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
californicatorFeb 17, 2012
Bob Dole was a paid to lobby for and advertise Viagra, by the company that made it. As a result, Medicaid started covering it in the late 90s.
I call Bob Dole a "rightie".
And, I'll do you one better... here's a list of "rightie" Governors that signed legislation that says insurance companies should pay for contraception:
- Mitt Romney
- Mike Huckabee
- George Pataki
This "unprecedented infringement on our rights" argument is really getting old...
barackalypseFeb 17, 2012
You're seriously using Bob Dole as a paid spokesperson as an example of conservatives advocating Viagra should be covered by insurance?
Mitt Romney doesn't help your case either, he's not actually a conservative (though he pretends to be, having changes his position on abortion and gay marriage), but he especially isn't as it relates to health care after the crap he pulled in Mass.
If Huckabee did indeed sign legislation forcing that I'm definitely willing to concede that he qualifies as a social conservative at least.
californicatorFeb 18, 2012
"You're seriously using Bob Dole as a paid spokesperson as an example of conservatives advocating Viagra should be covered by insurance?"
-- Yep! You may not know this, but Bob Dole's work on insurance-covered Viagra also (indirectly) resulted in contraception being covered... back in a day when Republicans actually cared about looking like hypocrites.
"Mitt Romney doesn't help your case either... having changes (sic) his position on abortion and gay marriage"
-- You forgot to mention he also attacked Obama and changed his position on the very contraception-requirement at issue. That certainly does help my case... and deep-sixes his (and yours).
"If Huckabee did indeed sign legislation forcing that I'm definitely willing to concede that he qualifies as a social conservative at least."
-- Not only did Huckabee sign "Obamacare-ish" legislation back in 2005, he also pulled a Romney-style flip-flop on the issue now that it isn't in his political interest. Furthermore, he can be seen nightly on cable TV asking people to sign his anti-"Obamacare" bulls**t petition, telling everyone how much of an overreach it was. So classic!
crashdvisFeb 17, 2012
Wow. Congratulations. You just won the prize for the biggest red herring argument I've ever seen on Digg.
FrankLuskaFeb 17, 2012
And we wonder why California sinks further into bowels of destruction everyday, no we don't, all we have to do is listen to comments by you to understand fully.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhw539Feb 17, 2012
"Viagra just gives you a hard-on"
Actually, it was initially developed to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension (and I believe that is still an on-label use of it). There are plenty of true spears to lob at Republican's moronic stance on this one, don't cloud the issue by making up a fake one.
californicatorFeb 17, 2012
OK, fair enough... Viagra does treat the rare disease "pulmonary arterial hypertension", and was originally developed to do so.
Regardless, current contraceptive laws in almost 30 states are mostly the result of insurance covering E.D. treatments... starting in the late 90's. These exact contraceptive-requirements were signed into law by Republican governors Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and George Pataki... and it all started with very-conservative Iowa about 10 years ago.
The idea that Obama is doing something "unprecedented" to anyone here is completely ridiculous.
You are correct, Republican's stance on this issue is truly moronic! You get a Digg from me.
deomo899Feb 17, 2012
I don't know how many erections will be had if the ladies don't wanna give it up because they lack birth control.
dragularFeb 17, 2012
Because the fact that some insurance companies are choosing to cover Viagra, and Obama's policies require insurances to cover birth control, are the same thing.
quisquisFeb 17, 2012
Viagra shouldn't be covered either.
We should cover fewer stupid things, not more.
ferretmanFeb 17, 2012
Heck, that's easy...things like Viagra *shouldn't* be covered.
There solved that for ya.
infidelcafeFeb 17, 2012
Viagra and birth control are no more required for health care than hair implants or breast enhancements. Insurance can offer them if they wish but it shouldn't be required. And people can elect to buy an insurance plan that covers those items - but it shouldn't be required. No person or organization (religious or not) should be required to provide insurance that covers these items, nor should they have control over whether individuals use them. If an individual wants an insurance policy that covers viagra or birth control they can buy it themselves, or they can pay for it themselves.
chadpyleFeb 17, 2012
If insurance companies are forced to cover birth control, I want condoms added to my plan.
morgansherrFeb 17, 2012
What? You're not satisfied with having Viagra available to you? So you can have sex for *gasp* pleasure AND procreation?
angelofchaos99Feb 16, 2012
Hey, male religious right: Maybe the lack of a boner is God's way of telling you that you have cardiovascular disease and you probably shouldn't be having a child right now (even if your partner is still fertile).
Actually, if you need viagra to get boners then chances are you're an older male. Chances are also that your wife is older and menopausal. There's no chance of actually "welcoming life" through sex at this point, so it's actually recreational. Doesn't your god frown upon recreational sexual activities?
fertilebastardFeb 17, 2012
Of course he doesn't frown upon it. What Ben Franklin said about beer also applies to sex.... It proves that there is a god, and he wants us to be happy.
FrankLuskaFeb 17, 2012
Well said.
angelofchaos99Feb 17, 2012
A few examples from the King James Version of the Bible:
2 Timothy Chapter 2:
22Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
1 Corinthians 7
1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
savetheseaFeb 17, 2012
" It proves that there is a god, and he wants us to be happy."
and, apparently, perpetually pregnant.
snowfoxxFeb 17, 2012
Maybe the creator wants us to be happy. It's his or her representives on Earth whom have a problem with the fact that a woman somewhere might have an orgasm.
u2canfailFeb 17, 2012
With an aspirin between every woman's legs, who are these MALES going to poke to use for services? Is the Health Insurance Industry suggesting Males all be GAY?
friday1970Feb 17, 2012
They're doing Minnie.
as in...
Minnie fingers as they can get around it..
(i hope you know that I'm just using this comment as joke, not to be taken literally).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jrock080692Feb 17, 2012
If everyone was gay or lesbo this wouldn't be a problem
ferretmanFeb 17, 2012
Well, for a generation anyway.....
crashdvisFeb 17, 2012
No one is forced to cover Viagra though. If your insurance provider doesn't cover it, you are SOL. The government isn't forcing them to do it. I'm sure you guys on the left understand the difference but it doesn't fit in your narrative so you just ignore it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
digger1123Feb 18, 2012
Since when does the government have the right to say that a religious organization must go against their beliefs? What happened to religious freedom? Nobody is saying that women insured by religious organizations that choose not to provide bitch control can't use it, but the organization just won't pay for it. And erections aren't against any religion that I can think of. It's comparing apples to cars.
CaptainMiseryFeb 17, 2012
Viagra fixes a problem. It makes your penis work so you can reproduce. Birth control doesn't fix a problem. Birth control is more of a luxury item since you don't have to have it.
davidnivenFeb 17, 2012
Again, the issue is not the contraceptives themselves but the unfunded mandate by the Federal government to businesses. It's wrong to force businesses to give away anything. And there's the old 10th Amendment kicking in, relegating such nonsense to the States if you really want the mandate to stick.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mortventFeb 17, 2012
28 states already have the mandate as state law, most with no exemption for anyone at all.
And the church didn't bitch about it, nor did the politicians bitching now because they all helped pass the laws and spoke out in their favor!
DiggPiggletFeb 17, 2012
Only emergency contraception for rape.
mortventFeb 17, 2012
Nope birth control, meaning the mandate just makes 22 states health care plans cover it. And adds an exemption clause now to all the states that didn't have one.
Not abortion little piggy
FrankLuskaFeb 17, 2012
What, the states have rights not granted to the Fed's, wow, someone should add that to the constitution, the 10th in the bill of rights seems like a good place.
repinsFeb 17, 2012
then lobby the other 22, the Federal government has different rules than an individual state does...that is how this country was founded.
Sometimes I think, basic civics classes seem to be lacking in this country
It is also why Federal universal health care is wrong, but states are free to do what they want.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CrescentSkies_2Feb 17, 2012
Wow it makes so much sense now...let's start an angry mob...
barackalypseFeb 17, 2012
The left must be enjoying this, an opportunity to simultaneously slander the Church as backwards and anti-woman and make that the focus of the debate so they can brush aside any criticism of a health care law that seeks to impose what coverage insurance plans must offer and employers must pay for (unless they wish to stop providing insurance benefits).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
homebizblokeFeb 18, 2012
The debate who pays for contraception - Everyone who needs subsidized contraception should be entitled. If your state has no provison then partners should educate themselves to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Good reading articles on this matter at http://www.homebizbloke.com/2012/01/26/stroke-by-stroke-guide-to-giving-amazing-hand-jobs/
jeremylew416Feb 17, 2012
I think it's funny how the news was all over the contraception issue once it came up, but now that all these questions being asked about voter fraud and manipulation, you've hardly heard a peep about it.
jlodyga083Feb 17, 2012
woodys have nothing to do with this , it is the big drug corp,s that have all those republicans in there pockets .
linageeFeb 17, 2012
As a male member of this species I have this to say: If females want to raise their insurance premiums by tacking on birth control costs, I say let them. There are no free lunches. (However I am highly against making it government mandated. If someone wants to pay for this insurance coverage, I say let them.)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lordharvestFeb 17, 2012
actually their premiums would go down, birth control is better for the insurance company to provide. Because a lifetime supply is less than simply the cost of one baby being delivered.
linageeFeb 17, 2012
"The cost of one baby being delivered" is covered only when you buy medical insurance that has Maternity included. This typically adds $10-$20 per month to a woman's medical insurance. As I said, no free lunches.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
friday1970Feb 16, 2012
Is this argument for real?
No conservative is against contraceptives, and no conservative is against women.
This whole argument is, once again, a made up fairy tale for which the left hopes to use to bash the right.
Using leftist idiots logic, lefties are against erection insurance and wish to deprive men of them. They hate erections. Thus, they hate men.
See how this works, lefties?
Even more, the whole premise of this argument is completely idiotic. Since when does the president have sole authority to force someone to give away something to someone else? I'd love to her a leftest here on digg attempt to rationalize that, using the constitution as support for his/her argument.
Please...humor me...I love a good debate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Feb 16, 2012
This is who attended to speak about contraceptives. All men:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/panel-2.jpg
Or use aspirin to prevent pregnancy:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rick-santorum-backer-suggests-bayer-aspirin-a-birth-control-method-women-article-1.1024101
Frothy wants to fight the evils of contraception:
http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/14/rick-santorum-wants-to-fight-the-dangers-of-contraception/
Want me to go on?
miklkitFeb 17, 2012
I just watched that clown show run by Issa. He just cost the republicons the vote of every woman who will learn about this.
I just talked to my 80 year old mother who is a very conservative republican about this, and she was shocked and said she will be looking in to this.
And that old joke about the aspirin. The version I heard when I was a kid used a penny. "A penny for your thoughts." We all laughed about it.
friday1970Feb 17, 2012
Sure, Anomaly10, but in the context of this question:
"Since when does the president have sole authority to force someone to give away something to someone else? I'd love to her a leftest here on digg attempt to rationalize that, using the constitution as support for his/her argument."
I see you're avoiding this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Feb 17, 2012
"Is this argument for real?
No conservative is against contraceptives, and no conservative is against women."
I provided citations with my response.
theunlearnFeb 17, 2012
The hearing wasn't about contraceptives, it was about whether or not the president had overstepped his authority by mandating insurance companies or businesses cover contraceptives in their health plans.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
friday1970Feb 17, 2012
"Or use aspirin to prevent pregnancy:"
If you can't understand what he meant and you only take that literally, you shouldn't be here on digg.
Putting aspirin between your knees, aka, keeping your legs closed. No sex.
Jeez.....Do I have to explain everything to you?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Feb 17, 2012
"Putting aspirin between your knees, aka, keeping your legs closed. No sex."
OK, so to leave out the obvious sexism, you wouldn't mind if he said to put super glue on your dick.
friday1970Feb 17, 2012
So it's "sexism" now?
Jeez!... you really need to loosen up!
(No pun intended).
Man, you are a bitter person sometimes, you know that, right?
Just why are you so bitter?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Feb 17, 2012
I'm not bitter. I'm just making a point, which you obviously got or you wouldn't be so sensitive to it.
friday1970Feb 17, 2012
And, you still can't answer my original question.
"Since when does the president have sole authority to force someone to give away something to someone else? I'd love to her a leftist here on digg attempt to rationalize that, using the constitution as support for his/her argument"'
So, instead, you're just going to call me sexist because I had to translate a old phrase not heard in years just for you.
So please, defend your president and answer my question. That's all I ask of you.
anomaly100Feb 17, 2012
PS: In case you don't open the link:
"Last October, Rick Santorum gave an interview with an Evangelical blog called Caffeinated Thoughts, in which he said contraception is “not okay,” and that this would be a public policy issue he would tackle as President."
fertilebastardFeb 17, 2012
Hmmmm.. pandering to his base.. We've never seen a politician do this before.
If he gets elected he'll forget all those wacky promises just like our fearless leader forgot many of his.
A pox on all of them!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseFeb 17, 2012
You guys seem to be confused about the difference between a fertility treatment (Viagra) and contraception (which is pretty much the opposite). The Catholic Church opposes vasectomies and condoms, which are male contraception, every bit as much as it opposes female contraception.
Similarly, the Church supports female fertility treatments, just like it supports male ones. The Church's only real caveat here is that the treatments must always be by way of assistance and never substitution of the marriage act. So Viagra = OK, artificial insemination = NOT OK.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 16, 2012
procreation is encouraged by the Catholic Church
ferretmanFeb 17, 2012
And by Judaism and Islam, but don't let your ideology allow you to recognize that.
skywiseFeb 16, 2012
FYI- paying for prostitution is illegal but paying for contraception is mandatory...
anomaly100Feb 16, 2012
Sense. Can you make it?
skywiseFeb 17, 2012
Can't think out of the tiny box the Ministry of Truth provides for you?
mtownFeb 17, 2012
Please tell me what made you think, after reading the article, that the the best way to respond was to say, "FYI- paying for prostitution is illegal but paying for contraception is mandatory...".
FrankLuskaFeb 17, 2012
May have had something to do with the urge of freedom, vs government mandates.
skywiseFeb 17, 2012
Hey I'm against mandatory Viagra coverage too if that makes you feel any better. But that's included in my point.
It's illegal to pay for sex or pay for somebody else to have sex.
It's mandatory to pay for their birth control.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtownFeb 17, 2012
Ok, now that I know what you where going for your comment does make more sense. Still, paying for birth control is not the same as paying for a prostitute.
People are going to have sex regardless, but having insurance companies pay for birth control will reduce the number of children growing up in broken, abusive households AND help poor families save money.
AND the insurance companies save money in the long run. Exactly what is the downside to this again?
skywiseFeb 17, 2012
No it won't... Planned Parenthood has been giving out condoms and birth control pills for years to those who can't afford it and guess what... birth rates and teenage pregnancy are still going UP!
Insurance companies would save a ton of money if they mandated abortions if you're too young or too old... gonna tell me that's OK too, coz, hey! They're saving money!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
SPATIALGUYFeb 17, 2012
Birth rates and teenage pregnancy are not going up.
http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/AboutTeenPreg.htm
kaegroFeb 16, 2012
fail
mtownFeb 17, 2012
And this years award for Most Confusing Comment goes too...
luvkitFeb 17, 2012
Just a crazy thought, but wasn't Viagra developed as a cure to an ailment? Erectile dysfunction means an organ (albeit a sexual one) needs to an aid to be functional again. Contraception is designed to stop natural conception. So technically, Viagra fixes something broken, and contraception breaks something functional. Viewed in this light, doesn't it make more sense insurance companies pay for Viagra? It's not planned parenthood; sexuality is part of humanity. It would be like saying sight or hearing is not necessary because a person could function without it. True, but would insurance companies paying for a cure to make the blind see be a supporting argument for them also paying for contraception?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
logainsFeb 17, 2012
Birth control does more than just prevent pregnancies. I began taking it as a teenager because my periods were so painful that I O.D.ed on pain meds. There are many benefits to taking birth control that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancies.
luvkitFeb 17, 2012
Taking a wild guess here, but if birth control was the only cure for a medical disorder, it would be covered by an insurance provider. Assuming you had a decent company. You, dear logains, are participating in propaganda, not logic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gotapointFeb 18, 2012
You might want to Google the issue before discussing it, or even just ask a woman - if you can find one.
logains' experience is very common and she is completely correct.
chanelgalFeb 17, 2012
Logains is correct; women take birth control to cure painful periods as well as acne/ facial skin problems. Why else do dermatolgist prescribe birth control to women ?
austrologiFeb 17, 2012
I don't think the church has a problem with it on that basis.
gotapointFeb 18, 2012
And yet - they would still deny the coverage....
Medications choices should only be between a doctor the their patient - employers, and churches, should stay out of it. Doctors and drugs are already regulated by the government - so it's hard to tell them to stay out of it.
luvkitFeb 19, 2012
They are. That's not the point. The point is that patients want the 'best decision' to be paid for by the insurance companies or the government.
gotapointFeb 19, 2012
And, I thought that's what the whole point of having insurance is.....