It's Not a Hard Choice - It's a Medical Condition

[Perfection]

Yeah, I'd estimate about 1 out of 10,000 erections is used procreationally. The rest are just for fun.

TIME FOR BONER MATH

Well, maybe in 10,000 are used procreationally, but one in 10,000 erections that are used (IE excluding random boners, morning wood etc. that are "unused") wouldn't be. Let's presume on average, a man between 14 and 75 would use a boner a day, that comes to a bit over 20 thousand boners, if 3 or more are used in an attempt at procreation, then my point stands tall. Considering that on average guys have more than two kids and attempts to produce them more often fail then not, I think we can presume that the 10,000 number is false.

Also, if we're talking about Viagra erections we're probably going to see more used for procreational purposes.

 

[Aegis]

Impotence is a medical condition. Wanting to use birth control is not. On top of that, there are other forms of birth control outside of taking pills, which is why it is not covered by health insurance. I am not saying I agree with that stance, merely that I acknowledge their rationale.

A simple way to defeat O'Reilly is to talk about the importance of birth control and how paying for something as simple as that could save thousands of dollars later on from an accidental pregnancy.

But no, we have a guy slamming O'Reilly, who ignores his points, uses personal attacks and comes off as a douchebag in the process, and that annoys me.

 

[Mise]

It is technically a medical condition, in the same way that Alopecia or Dandruff are medical conditions, but AFAIK, there is nothing in the constitution or bible that says that drugs should be provided for all medical conditions, or only for medical conditions.

 

[LucyDuke]

EDIT: Now that I think about it, can't birth control be covered for medical reasons like menstrual problems? I know it can and is prescribed for it, but is it covered by insurance that way? If not, I can definitely see why it's not: It would cost insurance companies way too much. It's all about the dollar...that's why medical condition vs choice is all you need to know.

Impotence is a medical condition. Wanting to use birth control is not. On top of that, there are other forms of birth control outside of taking pills, which is why it is not covered by health insurance. I am not saying I agree with that stance, merely that I acknowledge their rationale.

So "wanting to be infertile when you're fertile" is not a medical condition, but "wanting to be fertile when you're infertile" is.

Anyway, what Holycannoli said. It's not always about baby-proofing, there are other reasons women use The Pill, some of them are certainly "elective" but plenty are not.

 

[holy king]

So "wanting to be infertile when you're fertile" is not a medical condition, but "wanting to be fertile when you're infertile" is.

well, "erectile dysfunction" is a medical condition, "fertility" is not.

the guy's got a point, though he's a stupid conservative dodging why he really is against birth control.

 

[Holycannoli]

Oh now it's on! That's uncalled for and you're making incorrect assumptions.

Who said I was against birth control? I never said anything of the sort. I said I understand why it's not covered, but Viagra is. What I'm against is abortion; I'm totally pro-birth control. And like Aegis and I said, there are other birth control methods. So why should insurance or the government pay for this one particular kind of birth control when there's other methods that can be used?

The only way I'd agree for The Pill to be covered by insurance is if it's for a legitimate medical condition, and not because it's the woman's or couples' preferred form of birth control.

Anyway, yes I'm a stupid conservative And don't you forget it. And also don't forget I'm not against birth control, only abortion when it's used as birth control.

 

[holy king]

Oh now it's on! That's uncalled for and you're making incorrect assumptions.

Who said I was against birth control? I never said anything of the sort. I said I understand why it's not covered, but Viagra is. What I'm against is abortion; I'm totally pro-birth control. And like Aegis and I said, there are other birth control methods. So why should insurance or the government pay for this one particular kind of birth control when there's other methods that can be used?

The only way I'd agree for The Pill to be covered by insurance is if it's for a legitimate medical condition, and not because it's the woman's or couples' preferred form of birth control.

Anyway, yes I'm a stupid conservative And don't you forget it. And also don't forget I'm not against birth control, only abortion when it's used as birth control.

you? i was talking about the o-post...

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

You see, Big Billo has a medical condition that impairs Little Billo when Big Billo attempts to have phone sex with his producers. If he has to pay for his drugs or your drugs, he won't be able to buy you dinner. Maybe he should just dine at the Y.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBm3FMDM8aE

The video is basically O' Reilly atacking an anti-McCain ad where McCain is stumbling with answering whether he agrees that insurance plans should cover viagra, but not birth control. Billo goes off on viagra being a medical condition while birth control is a choice.

I heard about this yesterday from my own girlfriend, who takes birth control pills, which are covered by her insurance plan.

The background of this is that some insurance plans do not cover oral contraceptives, but they do cover viagra. These plans usually come from a religious organization, such as the Catholic Church. For example, nearly all Catholic hospitals in the U.S. are subsidized by the Catholic Church, and their employees health insurance is subject to these restrictions. (You can recognize a Catholic hospital if it has the word "Saint" in the name, or is called things like "Immaculate" or "Sacred Heart" etc.) Such restrictions would be subject to sex discrimination accusations and law suits, except that the church gets away with it by claiming that as a religious organization, it is a private non-profit organization.

Yes, viagra does treat a medical condition, impotence, but no one put a gun to that guy's head and told him he must f---.

 

[holy king]

Yes, viagra does treat a medical condition, impotence, but no one put a gun to that guy's head and told him he must f---.

there's practically a little man sitting in his brain threatening him with a gun though...

 

[Syterion]

Did you read Mise's post? He pretty much wins this thread.

 

[Aegis]

So "wanting to be infertile when you're fertile" is not a medical condition, but "wanting to be fertile when you're infertile" is.

Um. Yes. That's it, exactly. Is this a trick? >.>

Being fertile is normal. It is not a medical condition.
Being infertile is not normal. It is a medical condition preventing you from doing what you're designed to do.

well, "erectile dysfunction" is a medical condition, "fertility" is not.

Thank you for saying it more eloquently than I could.

It is technically a medical condition, in the same way that Alopecia or Dandruff are medical conditions, but AFAIK, there is nothing in the constitution or bible that says that drugs should be provided for all medical conditions, or only for medical conditions.

There’s nothing in the Constitution which says health insurance has to exist, period. There's also nothing in the constitution regulating what Health Providers can/cannot do. There are tons of things that are not in the Constitution, but are still needed. It's up to the individual carrier to decide what they will/will not cover. Some offer contraceptive coverage, some don't. This isn't a governmental issue so much as it is a personal choice issue. If you don't like your coverage, go to another carrier if you can.

 

[Syterion]

Um. Yes. That's it, exactly. Is this a trick? >.>

Being fertile is normal. It is not a medical condition.
Being infertile is not normal. It is a medical condition preventing you from doing what you're designed to do.

There’s nothing in the Constitution which says health insurance has to exist, period. There's also nothing in the constitution regulating what Health Providers can/cannot do. There are tons of things that are not in the Constitution, but are still needed. It's up to the individual carrier to decide what they will/will not cover. Some offer contraceptive coverage, some don't. This isn't a governmental issue so much as it is a personal choice issue. If you don't like your coverage, go to another carrier if you can.

Well I'm ugly. I think my cosmetic surgery should be covered by insurance, because it's preventing me from doing what I'm designed to do.

I suppose it is up the carrier. If this is so, then carriers should definitely provide insurance for birth control if they are going to provide it for viagra, as both are optional and aim to allow the other to have sex safely.

 

[LucyDuke]

Oh now it's on! That's uncalled for and you're making incorrect assumptions.

Who said I was against birth control? I never said anything of the sort. I said I understand why it's not covered, but Viagra is. What I'm against is abortion; I'm totally pro-birth control. And like Aegis and I said, there are other birth control methods. So why should insurance or the government pay for this one particular kind of birth control when there's other methods that can be used?

The only way I'd agree for The Pill to be covered by insurance is if it's for a legitimate medical condition, and not because it's the woman's or couples' preferred form of birth control.

Anyway, yes I'm a stupid conservative And don't you forget it. And also don't forget I'm not against birth control, only abortion when it's used as birth control.

Just keep in mind, and please please please don't let me be starting a thread derailing, that generally the more birth control we have, the less abortion we'll have. And having insurance companies pay for the birth control is a good way to get more birth control. (Having insurance companies pay for the birth control is not going to break the bank.) I'm always surprised when people that oppose abortion aren't the loudest advocates for more birth control.

Um. Yes. That's it, exactly. Is this a trick? >.>

No, I know, it's just funny.

Being fertile is normal. It is not a medical condition.
Being infertile is not normal. It is a medical condition preventing you from doing what you're designed to do.

Not getting many boners when you're 60 is normal. It is not a medical condition.

 

[LucyDuke]

Well I'm ugly. I think my cosmetic surgery should be covered by insurance, because it's preventing me from doing what I'm designed to do.

I suppose it is up the carrier. If this is so, then carriers should definitely provide insurance for birth control if they are going to provide it for viagra, as both are optional and aim to allow the other to have sex safely.

Boner bills have nothing to do with safe sex.

 

[Narz]

TIME FOR BONER MATH

Well, maybe in 10,000 are used procreationally, but one in 10,000 erections that are used (IE excluding random boners, morning wood etc. that are "unused") wouldn't be. Let's presume on average, a man between 14 and 75 would use a boner a day, that comes to a bit over 20 thousand boners, if 3 or more are used in an attempt at procreation, then my point stands tall. Considering that on average guys have more than two kids and attempts to produce them more often fail then not, I think we can presume that the 10,000 number is false.

The average guy (in the US) probably has just over two. I don't know about how much they try for kids. My sperms are pretty potent & I pick fertile women so most likely every time we want one, we'll get one.

Also, if we're talking about Viagra erections we're probably going to see more used for procreational purposes.

Depends. Most on Viagra are probably older men who don't want any more kids.

 

[Narz]

Also, WTH are you neocons smoking? I thought you opposed the governmet paying for people's medical bills. Especially for friggin' impotence which is a lifestyle disease just as much as lung cancer or type-2 diabetes.

 

[LucyDuke]

My sperms are pretty potent & I pick fertile women so most likely every time we want one, we'll get one.

Is that just some kind of masturbatory self-congratulation, or does it actually mean something?

 

[Ansar]

Also, WTH are you neocons smoking? I thought you opposed the governmet paying for people's medical bills. Especially for friggin' impotence which is a lifestyle disease just as much as lung cancer or type-2 diabetes.

Old people -> conservatives.

Old people -> have a hard time getting it hard.

Conservatives -> have a hard time getting it hard.

They don't want to pay for it cause' they're cheap-o's.

 

[Narz]

Is that just some kind of masturbatory self-congratulation, or does it actually mean something?

I thought it's meaning was pretty clear.

Certain members of the population have low-fertility. I am not one of them nor is my significant other. Not casting judgment on people with fertility problems (though I see how they could get hurt feelings), just making a statement.

Old people -> conservatives.

Old people -> have a hard time getting it hard.

Conservatives -> have a hard time getting it hard.

They don't want to pay for it cause' they're cheap-o's.

Heh. Well maybe if the let their kids & grandkids have access to free birth control they'd have more money to spend on ways to try & beat nature.

 

[Mise]

There’s nothing in the Constitution which says health insurance has to exist, period. There's also nothing in the constitution regulating what Health Providers can/cannot do. There are tons of things that are not in the Constitution, but are still needed. It's up to the individual carrier to decide what they will/will not cover. Some offer contraceptive coverage, some don't. This isn't a governmental issue so much as it is a personal choice issue. If you don't like your coverage, go to another carrier if you can.

That's fair enough if that's all you're saying. But that isn't all you're saying.