I think that I see what you are saying now. Most insurance policies allow for medication to treat an illness, but it may not pay for a costly medicine if a less expensive one is available and effective.

That's part of it. Unless mandated an insurance company has the right to pick and chose what (if any) medications they cover. If you don't like what your coverage does or doesn't pay for then you look into other coverage. Keep in mind that the more companies are mandated to cover the higher their premiums will be.

First, as far as this thread topic is concerned, there is NO excuse for Limbaugh's comments about Ms. Fluke, and by extension all females who use birth control...no matter what the reason.

 

Secondly, when I am on the fence about whether ANY medication should be mandated by the government to be covered by insurance.

 

Thirdly, I am adamantly opposed to the government requiring religiously affiliated businesses to cover contraceptives of any sort.

 

Fourth, and lastly....as long as Viagra is covered by an insurance company, I do demand that birth control be covered by the same company.

Then should I as a single male be required to pay the same for my insurance coverage as a single woman? I'll NEVER use the maternaty benefits that are included as part of my coverage and yet I would bet what little money I have in my pocket that if there was ever any suggestion that single women at my company should pay more for their insurance then I do all heck would break loose.

 

As far as Viagra is concerned I could probably not care any less if it's covered by insurance or not. The one difference between that and BCPs as far as I can tell is a woman on BCP (when using it strictly for birth control) is still physically able to have sex and use other methods of birth control. A man taking Viagra in some cases is not physically able to have sex without it. Big difference as far as I'm concerned.

Then should I as a single male be required to pay the same for my insurance coverage as a single woman? I'll NEVER use the maternaty benefits that are included as part of my coverage and yet I would bet what little money I have in my pocket that if there was ever any suggestion that single women at my company should pay more for their insurance then I do all heck would break loose.

 

As far as Viagra is concerned I could probably not care any less if it's covered by insurance or not. The one difference between that and BCPs as far as I can tell is a woman on BCP (when using it strictly for birth control) is still physically able to have sex and use other methods of birth control. A man taking Viagra in some cases is not physically able to have sex without it. Big difference as far as I'm concerned.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, some plans are structured so that you can choose maternity coverage (at a higher premium) and others can choose not to. As you so eloquently pointed out, if you don't want to pay for it, find someplace to work that doesn't include it.

 

The actuality is that there is a huge difference between birth control and Viagra. Viagra is strictly for the function of aiding a man in being able to perform sexually. MANY women take birth control for reasons other than contraceptive reasons. My daughter, for instance, can't have children. Not a chance in hell. But she's been prescribed birth control for PCOS. And she NEEDS it. If you think not having sex is bad, try not having a period for 2 years, then being on your period for 6 months in a row....non-stop, complete with cramps, vomiting, headaches and chils. Couple that with weight gain (the kind that would make many people on here label her a fat slob if she was on an airplane) and the associated health risks that come with that.

Re-read my post. I said when they are using it strictly for birth control. I understand that there are medically necessary reasons for the pill. WHEN used strictly for birth control it is and remains my opinion that there is more of an argument for a NEED for Viagra then for BCP.

Re-read my post. I said when they are using it strictly for birth control. I understand that there are medically necessary reasons for the pill. WHEN used strictly for birth control it is and remains my opinion that there is more of an argument for a NEED for Viagra then for BCP.

 

I'd agree if sex were actually a need any greater than preventing pregnancy.

Now we're back to the whole want to prevent pregnancy don't have sex argument.

Now we're back to the whole want to prevent pregnancy don't have sex argument.

 

 

More men who can't have sex would certainly make that a whole lot easier. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUST KIDDING MEN! DON'T GET YOUR SHORTS IN A BUNCH!

RM with some of the fools who can't control themselves and have fathered multiple children I agree with you 110%.