PDA

View Full Version : McCain avoids Viagra question



Cold Warrior
07-11-2008, 09:14 AM
I saw this yesterday as it was happening and McCain and his campaign really, really need to elevate his game. In his response to the viagra/birth control question, he looked more like the old man in Aricept commercial who calls his grandaughter "Mary" instead of "Jane" than a presidential candidate. He no longer seems quick and clever enough to hold his own iin this arena. Hell, within a couple of hours, the Obama team had a "Dr. Phil" joke worked into his speech after Gramm's inopportune remarks.


July 10, 2008
McCain avoids Viagra question
Posted: 12:19 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

(CNN) – John McCain is known for his frequent chats with reporters and his willingness to discuss nearly any issue.

But at least one is off-limits, the Republican presidential nominee suggested Wednesday: Viagra.

"I certainly do not want to discuss that issue," the Arizona senator said aboard his "Straight Talk Express" bus in Ohio when asked about his views on health insurance covering the medication.

But the off-message topic was raised from a member of McCain’s own team: national co-chairwoman Carly Fiorina, who had said earlier women often express frustration over the fact many health insurance plans cover Viagra but not birth control medication.

"Let me give you a real, live example, which I've been hearing a lot about from women. There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won't cover birth control medication. Those women would like a choice," she said Monday.

More... (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/10/mccain-avoids-viagra-question/)

Carly Fiorina would be a good selection as VP. Youthful, a woman, first CEO of a major computer company!

Elspeth
07-11-2008, 09:40 AM
I saw this yesterday as it was happening and McCain and his campaign really, really need to elevate his game. In his response to the viagra/birth control question, he looked more like the old man in Aricept commercial who calls his grandaughter "Mary" instead of "Jane" than a presidential candidate. He no longer seems quick and clever enough to hold his own iin this arena. Hell, within a couple of hours, the Obama team had a "Dr. Phil" joke worked into his speech after Gramm's inopportune remarks.



Carly Fiorina would be a good selection as VP. Youthful, a woman, first CEO of a major computer company!

I agree with you on Fiorina, but I have to say something about the Viagra question: it's none of anyone's goddamned business.

You all know I am pro-choice, and part of that is because I do not believe that ANYONE has the right to intrude on private decisions about one's own body. It is none of your business if I use birth control or had an abortion, and it is not my business if you've had a vasectomy or if you use Viagra or KY in the bedroom. These things are private and should not be in the public sphere or controlled by governments. I know a lot of you will disagree, but I consider these issues of a piece.

Gingersnap
07-11-2008, 09:44 AM
I have a hard time believing that women below the poverty line are incapable of accessing free contraceptives. They give the stuff away like candy through just about every social program.

As far as "stiffeners" go, I guess it makes sense to cover it as a medical expense if the guy can't perform without it but it shouldn't be covered in cases where the guy just wants an overly prolonged experience.

Cold Warrior
07-11-2008, 09:46 AM
I agree with you on Fiorina, but I have to say something about the Viagra question: it's none of anyone's goddamned business.

You all know I am pro-choice, and part of that is because I do not believe that ANYONE has the right to intrude on private decisions about one's own body. It is none of your business if I use birth control or had an abortion, and it is not my business if you've had a vasectomy or if you use Viagra or KY in the bedroom. These things are private and should not be in the public sphere or controlled by governments. I know a lot of you will disagree, but I consider these issues of a piece.

I really don't know enough about how insurance companies are currently regulated in terms of the drugs they offer as part of their plans. Are they, for example, mandated either through law or regulation, to offer medicine for diabetes or heart problems? I just don't know.

If they are, then I think clearly birth control should be on that list (probably moreso than Viagra). If they're not, then the market should decide.

LogansPapa
07-11-2008, 10:28 AM
Saw the video of the bus interview yesterday. Bet McCain wishes he was back in the Hanoi Hilton for a while during that little chat. He looked like an old snake trying to wiggle out of his skin. Poor SOB.

Zafod
07-11-2008, 10:50 AM
Saw the video of the bus interview yesterday. Bet McCain wishes he was back in the Hanoi Hilton for a while during that little chat. He looked like an old snake trying to wiggle out of his skin. Poor SOB.

This post was uncalled for.
Making light of Hanoi is very bad taste.

biccat
07-11-2008, 11:50 AM
Impotency is a medical problem, Viagra is a cure for that medical problem. Yes, some people abuse it (and some doctors enable the abuse), but that shouldn't be a reason to refuse to provide the drug. People abuse Morphine as well, but we're not discussing banning that drug.

Birth control pills are not (except in a few rare cases) treatment for a medical problem. They are a drug which enables a lifestyle choice. I can't imagine any compelling reason why health insurance companies should be required to carry that drug. Why not require health insurance companies to cover condoms and abortions while we're at it?

Bottom line, this shouldn't be an issue for the presidential debate. Health insurance companies should (although it probably won't happen) be able to cover any drugs or treatments that they want. Let consumers decide what level of care they want from their health insurer. I would personally opt for no coverage under $100,000, then 100% after that. The premiums would be miniscule on such a plan.

Cold Warrior
07-11-2008, 11:53 AM
Impotency is a medical problem, Viagra is a cure for that medical problem. Yes, some people abuse it (and some doctors enable the abuse), but that shouldn't be a reason to refuse to provide the drug. People abuse Morphine as well, but we're not discussing banning that drug.
...

I'm not sure we were talking about banning (or refusing to prescribe) any drugs. :confused:

ConJinx
07-11-2008, 12:00 PM
My insurance company covered both Viagra for myself(which is a funny story) and birth control for my 20 year old daughter. And no I'm not fornicating my 20 year old daughter, but get the jokes out if you must.

LogansPapa
07-11-2008, 12:05 PM
I think this falls under the heading of ‘one of those icky woman things’ and the Senator just wants to shake his head like an Etch-a-Sketch and make it go away. In the back of his mind he’s probably thinking that if he concedes to the birth-control issue then the morning-after pill will be coming down the road right after it and there goes the Bible Thumper’s vote. Keep them womens barefoot and pregnant.

Elspeth
07-11-2008, 12:14 PM
Impotency is a medical problem, Viagra is a cure for that medical problem. Yes, some people abuse it (and some doctors enable the abuse), but that shouldn't be a reason to refuse to provide the drug. People abuse Morphine as well, but we're not discussing banning that drug.

Birth control pills are not (except in a few rare cases) treatment for a medical problem. They are a drug which enables a lifestyle choice. I can't imagine any compelling reason why health insurance companies should be required to carry that drug. Why not require health insurance companies to cover condoms and abortions while we're at it?

Bottom line, this shouldn't be an issue for the presidential debate. Health insurance companies should (although it probably won't happen) be able to cover any drugs or treatments that they want. Let consumers decide what level of care they want from their health insurer. I would personally opt for no coverage under $100,000, then 100% after that. The premiums would be miniscule on such a plan.

Actually, pregnancy is an altered state of the body which leads to many health problems for some women. It is not officially an illness, but it certainly heightens risks for certain illnesses including high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, depression, and even death, especially in the absence of proper pre-natal and hospital care. As such, birth control could be viewed as a preventative against such potential illnesses. In the same way that the regular use of aspirin can prevent a heart attack, the regular use of birth control can prevent many pregnancy related illnesses, especially in women who are at risk (35 and older).

biccat
07-11-2008, 12:53 PM
Actually, pregnancy is an altered state of the body which leads to many health problems for some women. It is not officially an illness, but it certainly heightens risks for certain illnesses including high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, depression, and even death, especially in the absence of proper pre-natal and hospital care. As such, birth control could be viewed as a preventative against such potential illnesses. In the same way that the regular use of aspirin can prevent a heart attack, the regular use of birth control can prevent many pregnancy related illnesses, especially in women who are at risk (35 and older).

Asperin can prevent heart attacks, but no one goes out with the intent of having a heart attack. A heart attack victim might suffer because of eating too many cheeseburgers, having a family history, using cocaine, or some completely unknown factor. Asperin therefore reduces risk from unknown sources..

Tetanus shots prevent tetanus, but no one goes out and stabs themselves with a rusty knife after getting one just to see if it took.

Anyone who is old enough to get birth control pills knows the consequences of sexual intercourse. There is an absolute and unique relationship between sex and pregnancy. Sex leads to pregnancy, pregnancy implies sexual intercourse (actual or constructive). No other options. Further, sexual intercourse is an intervening freely made decision between the "medication" and the increased risk of illness. A person who should be using asperin therapy might suffer a heart attack just by sitting up too quickly in bed. A woman is not going to become pregnant (and suffer the increased health risks) by bending over to tie her shoes.

Equating pregnancy with an illness like impotency is absurd. One is a consequence of free choice, the other is a consequence of a number of unknown factors.

LogansPapa
07-11-2008, 01:39 PM
Well all I can say is - if a woman’s pregnancy caused men’s balls to shrivel up and become useless raisins - depriving them of any kind of a sexual life , then funding to distribute free birth control would shoot out the asses of Congressmen. Oh wait - on second thought, pregnancy already does that. Never mind.

:o

linda22003
07-11-2008, 01:45 PM
If you're not part of the solution (birth control), then you're part of the problem (Viagra). ;)