<p>I have been reading the multiple threads concerning contraception. I joined to ask everyone to please stop with the offensive Viagra comments. Just as BCP can be used for medical conditions, Viagra is too. Viagra is used post surgery (radical prostatectomy) for prostate cancer to help restore normal function. My husband just had this surgery 3 days ago, viagra is not covered by insurance and costs over 200 dollars. So stop with the old geezer/ dirty old man comments. My husband is 58 and father of 4 boys.</p>
<p>skyhook…it’s a religious issue…you know, a constitution thing…</p>
<p>…and should insurers have to pay for the school’s football player’s helmets? They do protect the players you know.</p>
<p>Thanks, MDmomof4, I did not know that about Viagra.</p>
<p>I am curious what treatment protocol the Catholic Church will cover for PCOS. Does anyone know? I don’t know much about the condition other than what I just read on the internet. It looks like birth control pills are one of several drug treatments for the condition. In Ms. Fluke’s prepared speech, it sounds like PCOS sufferers <em>can</em> get bcps covered by Georgetown right now, but it may require more layers of justification.</p>
<p>I have a vague recollection of bcps not being covered by insurance when I first used them back in the early 80’s, and my ob/gyn writing up a fudged prescription that stated I needed them for a medical condition - endometriosis maybe?</p>
<p>Let me say also that I agree that health insurance should not be tied with employment. It should be something that we all purchase on the open market, just like auto insurance. We can browse through plans and decide what we want to pay for. </p>
<p>I still think this is about the right of an institution to do what it wants to do. My previous employer offered a great health plan, but I couldn’t afford it, so my family had to find private insurance. I don’t harbor any ill will towards them, they simply offered the plan that they thought best,and I had the option to accept it or not.</p>
<p>the issue with contraception (or whatever) is exactly the same. </p>
<p>It’s also the same as to whether my employer wants to give us Veterans Day as a holiday. It is their absolute right to decide what benefits they offer, and I can decide whether I want to work there. </p>
<p>If I don’t like the health insurance that my health employer offers, I do have other options.</p>
<p>Employee costs are part of why Apple has half-a-million contract workers in China and why those jobs aren’t coming back here. If you’re in a high-value-added job, the costs of medical insurance are small compared to your total compensation but that’s probably different for relatively low wage jobs. So philosophically, yes, insurance being detached would help employers. But it’s pretty convenient to have the employer take care of this (my perspective).</p>
<p>Rush said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. He said repeatedly over a three day period that Ms. Fluke was a “slut” and a “prostitute” who should make sex tapes and put them online. Who would have known that would be perceived as a personal attack?</p>
<p>Just curious, where was the outrage with all the personal attacks on Sarah Palin and her children. We should at least be consistent.</p>
<p>^^^^^who?
</p>
<p>Crizello–what happens when you select a job, sign up for the employer sponsored health insurance and later develop an illness they “choose” to not cover. Maybe they change what illnesses they cover a year later, maybe you never thought you’d become ill.</p>
<p>Mdmom–I don’t recall anyone calling Palin same type of nasty names</p>
<p>Sent from my MB860 using CC App</p>
<p>One thing I can add, is that I was a law student for 3 years, who was on bcps. I was unmarried, highly educated (obviously), and would have been, and still am, embarrassed to expect others to pay for my single-life birth control needs. To me, it was a private and personal responsibility that I was capable of prioritizing and making choices about. This is why I don’t totally sympathize with Ms. Fluke (except for the PCOS part). A woman has plenty of choices of ways to not get pregnant. Some cost money; some don’t.</p>
<p>What Limbaugh did was offensive and wrong. But my point remains these types of personal attacks should not be acceptable if they are directed at someone with which one does not politically agree. Believe me I wish Palin would disappear but these type of attacks won’t stop if we do not express outrage when they are directed at those we do not agree with or even like.</p>
<p>Rush sez it isn’t anyones business what goes on in someone else’s bedroom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think Ive ever agreed with him before.</p>
<p>Re Post 83. @Bay. Nuns an take BCPs can take GYN issues. I once had this conversation with a nun!</p>
<p>Sandra Fluke’s testimony did not concern itself with “what is going on in anyone’s bedroom.” It was Mr. Limbaugh who spoke of making sex tapes, and having lots of sex, which would often occur in a bedroom. Ms. Fluke spoke of women at the pharmacy counter discovering that bcp were not covered by insurance, and of women whose health problems required treatment with bcp, but could not afford it. Unlike Mr. Limbaugh, she did not refer to bedroom activity, nor did she insult anyone. Her testimony is here:
[Sandra</a> Fluke’s Testimony and Transcript // Current TV](<a href=“http://current.com/community/93690301_sandra-flukes-testimony-and-transcript.htm]Sandra”>http://current.com/community/93690301_sandra-flukes-testimony-and-transcript.htm)</p>
<p>This is foolish. Whoever likes Mr. Limbaugh will continue to do so no matter what he says, and whoever finds him distasteful will also not be changing their minds. It is interesting that some sponsors, however, have dropped him. Let’s see if they go back after the firestorm dies down.</p>
<p>
As they say - the cheapest method is free.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>As they say - the cheapest method is free.</p>
<p>Do most couples only have sex when they want to procreate? Is that even healthy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Catholic Charities receives 60% of its funding from the federal government. If the Catholic Church decides to stop offering services, it will simply be funded through some other agency. That has already happened in places where Catholic Charities has declined to continue to participate in adoptions due to no longer being able to discriminate against same-sex couples.</p>
<p>There is a real issue here, and it is not religion bashing (as many posters in this thread have engaged in) and it is not personal attacks (that Rush engaged in).</p>
<p>The real issue is whether or not the federal government has the legal authority to dictate what is covered in a health plan.</p>
<p>As an aside, I don’t think it is unreasonable that if someone is getting a health plan through a school or employer that it should be taken into account when the school or employment decision is being made. I also don’t feel sorry for Georgetown students that are facing “financial hardship” because they can’t afford something. What is tuition at Georgetown again?</p>
<p>I see nothing wrong with the Federal government saying that insurance companies should be required to provide medically necessary treatment. an insurance company simply needs to offer a plan to the private employers. The private employer should agree to cover their employess-not micromanage their employees bodies. My decision to use birth control should be a discussion with myself and my physician, and should be treated like any other prescription. My employer should not know if I am on birth control or diabetes medication. by giving the mandate to the insurance companies, it takes away the moral argument because they no longer have the authority to restrict or condone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t go there. The political forum is closed. Plenty has been said on the subject. Including John McCain calling Chelsea Clinton a “dog.”</p>
<p>geeps, thanks for fully revealing yourself, yet again.</p>