McCain avoids Viagra question

[Elspeth]

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]

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]

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]

If you're not part of the solution (birth control), then you're part of the problem (Viagra). ;)