"Too bad. If you want a boner, pay for it yourself." (Digby)

[kpete]

Digby takes on the Little Blue Pill
by John Aravosis (DC) on 11/12/2009 09:12:00 AM
And she's right. If the boys are going to get all hot and bothered about health care reform possibly paying for a woman to terminate a pregnancy (uh, it is a medical procedure, and it is legal, Mr. President),. then why not ban the government from subsidizing plans that cover Viagra?
http://www.americablog.com/2009/11/digby-takes-on-little-blue-pill.html


An Immoderate Proposal

by digby

I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill. And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don't think there's even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that.)

Many of the men who are prescribed this medication are on Medicare, so I think it should be stripped out of that coverage as well. And unlike the payments for abortion, which actually lower overall medical costs (pregnancy obviously costs much, much more) banning tax dollars from covering any kind of Viagra would result in a substantial savings:

The price of Pfizer’s Viagra has doubledsince it was launched, according to a list of wholesale acquisition costs paid by pharmacies, obtained by BNET. In May 1999, a 100-count bottle of the blue diamonds cost $700. Today, that same bottle costs $1,457.61, a 108 percent increase, according to the list:



.....................

I don't want my tax dollars touching even one milimeter of that overly engorged expense.

I realize that many people disagree with my moral objections to men getting erections which God clearly doesn't want them to get, but my principles on this are more important to me than theirs are to them. So too bad. If you want a boner, pay for it yourself.

more at:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/immoderate-proposal-by-digby-i-have.html

[wicket]

1. Ahhhh hahahahahaha!

:rofl: :rofl:

[ddeclue]

2. $1500 for 100 pills? Yowsa!! That's a lot of money...

I had no idea they were that expensive. I had figured they were 50 dollars or thereabouts.

Glad I don't need them.

:)

[emulatorloo]

17. I don't know medicare's policies; however insurance plans limit the number of pills a patient gets

because they are so expensive.

[tridim]

26. I had no idea either. Glad I can still get it up.

I wonder how much they cost to make? 5 cents a pill maybe?

[bjobotts]

102. That was great. I think this is when a real national boycott should take place and that is

[bjobotts]

103. Women should boycot sex until the Stupak amendment is stripped from the HC bill

[bjobotts]

104. Sadly it would take the support of gays and minors to affect republicans

[Roon]

110. I suspect a lot of people get the drug that don't need it

When Viagra came out, the first thing that crossed my mind was,"Gay men are going to LOVE this!" My ex and his lover gobbled up all my Viagra and they are both younger than me. They just liked the novelty of the drug. I didn't need it either, I just got it to see what the fuss was all about.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. I didn't know Medicare paid for that stuff. (or maybe I should say "stiff")

[bjobotts]

105. It's not covered under Medicare prescription plans.

[ellie]

4. I wish I could

recommend this more than once. I have always said this, "If God wanted you to get an erection, he would have let you have one."

[RainDog]

5. but men's boners are so much more important than basic health care for women!

[SoCalDem]

6. what about for fertility treatments too.. Even God wanted some women to be "barren"

he put a LOT of them in his book..so clearly not ALL women were supposed to bear fruit:)

poor women don't get those treatments anyway, let the rich women pay for them

[glowing]

57. Most fertility treatments are out of pocket expenses. At least every ins.

policy I've held has made it a cost that the ins. co. will not cover.

[daleanime]

7. So we're all agreed?

Boner pills off the table, uh..., women back on the table?:blush:

[sui generis]

8. I disagree - it's the price you state is the problem

fix that problem.

One could argue that an asymptomatic congenital bilateral hernia is also an elective surgery and correction is a lifestyle choice that doesn't impact quality of life - and those are even pricier to fix.

The fact is you're gonna pay either way - if some dude who can't get it up with his hag wife is out bangin' hookers your "tax dollar" will be paying for his VD. Give the guy a pill, save a urethra. :P

Hyperbolic misogyny intended as hyberbole only.

[Kalyke]

78. I'd rather he just die of the STD.

(Pssst... Vd is outdated since it takes two to spread it - it's not automatically a woman's fault via her vagina).

[Alcibiades]

90. Psst, the V in VD does not stand for "vagina"

It stands for "venereal," a word that comes down to us from Latin:

"1400–50; late ME < L venere(us) of sexual love (vener-, s. of venus sexual charm (see Venus ) + -eus adj. suffix) + -al 1



1432, "of or pertaining to sexual desire or intercourse," from L. venereus, from venus (gen. veneris) "sexual love, sexual desire" (see Venus). Used of sexually transmitted diseases from 1658."

A word, bye the bye, completely unrelated to that other V word, "vagina:"

"vagina
1682, from L. vagina "sheath, scabbard" (pl. vaginæ), from PIE *wag-ina- (cf. Lith. voziu "ro cover with a hollow thing"), from base *wag- "to break, split, bite." Probably the ancient notion is of a sheath made from a split piece of wood (see sheath). A modern medical word; the L. word was not used in an anatomical sense in classical times. Anthropological vagina dentata is attested from 1908."

During the enlightenment, there was an effort to dump good old Anglo-Saxon words in favor of Latin ones. This is probably one of those cases.

[Turbineguy]

115. That was the problem we had

in Latin class.

A bunch of 13 year-olds translating stuff like: "The soldier put his sword in its scabbard."

[sui generis]

124. psssst: what a bunch of brilliant rejoinders.

Does nobody get dry humor? I suppose I should have spelled it out properly: Thuh Veee-Deeee.

oy. :hurts:

[Alcibiades]

125. Usually, I do get the dry humor

Though, in this case, wet humor would be better.

Just felt a little pedantic yesterday.

[nykym]

9. Bloody Brilliant!

I am in total agreement.

[peekaloo]

10. part of the Schtupak bill?

}(

and to those who say this proposal doesn't do dick!

:sarcasm:

[trumad]

11. I love Digby---- I want to marry her and have her kids.

[Thickasabrick]

69. LOL...you need to ask her. nt

[chimpymustgo]

12. K & R. ALL DAY LONG. Brilliant.

[cark]

13. What Do You Expect?

This is what happens when government gets involved in things the free market should handle. You want a stiffy, buy it yourself. You want an abortion, buy it yourself. Let the consumers decide instead of special interest groups. This way we aren't pitting neighbor against neighbor or American against American. It is the fairest and free-est system possible.

*IF* we want to actually reform healthcare and reduce prices - we need to reconnect people with that actual costs of services and let them decide if it is worth it. Maybe if insurance pays for boners people will take viagra, maybe if they are paying out of pocket they will forgo it to save money. This is why we spend so darn much, because of the perception that other people are paying.

President Obama likes to compare the need for auto insurance to medical insurance, I wish he would make the case for medical insurance behaving more like auto insurance and only covering unexpected major expenses, not maintenance. We need to reconnect the price of services with peoples wallets. How can we control prices when nobody even knows what the prices are until we get the bill 2 months later. Our system is completely broken and these reform measures do nothing to change the real underlying problems, but instead further entrenches them.

[Tansy_Gold]

20. Cars and driving are options; bodies and living aren't

It's a piss poor analogy, and I was disgusted that Olbermann chose to use it a few weeks ago since he himself doesn't (allegedly) own a car or drive.

The free market you like to trumpet is far from free; most of what regulation there is favors the insurers, not the consumers.


TG

[cark]

28. Completely Missing The Point.

You are missing my point completely. Insurance drives up the cost by disconnecting prices from the consumer.

Are food and shelter optional? The free market does a wonderful job of providing food and housing at affordably and abundantly. These are far more necessary than healthcare. Why not government grocery stores - how wonderful do you think they would be?

While the 'free market' isn't free - what are the biggest obsticles? Government colluding with big corporate special interests.

[Jim Sagle]

32. YOU'RE the one missing the point. This is DU not the Ayn Rand Institute.

Go back to Freeperville.

[cark]

35. I want real reform

I want everyone to have greater access to LESS expensive HC - I'm not shilling for any parties plan. I look at what has proven to work and what has proven to be a failure. Food costs haven't skyrocketed, but I bet they would if we had food insurance. Health insurance as presently operated is a failure.

What would happen if you went the grocery store and put everything in the cart that you thought you might need. The items didn't have any prices marked on them and when you check out you only pay a small co-pay. You do however pay a large premium every month. Do you think people would buy more than they need and do you think prices would remain low? What do you care if a box of Wheaties is $2 or $10. What do you care if one store is sell it for $1.50 cents less than another? You don't because you have no idea what things cost and what things cost ultimately don't matter. The only thing that matters is the co-pay and the premium. It is insane and prices will climb.

We need to fundamentally change the system.

[Gormy Cuss]

46. The demand is inelastic. A "free market" solution won't change that. n/t

While I agree that private, market-based health insurance pricing is now a failing system your example of consumption incentives aren't applicable to health care.

[cark]

51. The demand somewhat inelastic but prices aren't.

Why hasn't plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery and other elective procedures increased in price like the other services? Because people decide if they are worth it and if there is perhaps a cheaper place to get the procedure done which creates competition. I know for my friends Lasik, he researched different doctors and their prices and ultimately traveled to a different city to get it done less expensively.

The other factor is that paying out of pocket creates an incentive to keep yourself healthier. I heard a young lady on NPR saying how she takes much better care of her teeth since she no longer has dental insurance. She said before she didn't floss, because having a cavity filled wasn't a big deal because insurance paid for it. I think the same phenomenon would happen nationwide.

Another thing is look at the practice of defensive medicine. What do I care if the doctor runs a bunch of extra tests, good for me because it doesn't really cost me anything additional. If I had to pay an additional $50 or $100 for each of those tests, I may be a little more selective.

[Gormy Cuss]

58. "Elective." That would be the key word.

There is a body of evidence showing that higher out-of-pocket expenses control insurance costs in the short term because people put off health care but because delays can translate into far more serious and costly medical conditions it's unlikely to save money in the long run.

Your example of one person who takes better care of her teeth without dental insurance is also without merit because it's anecdotal and probably not even supported by a statement from her dentist.

Defensive medicine is unrelated to how much patients pay. Malpractice liability would still exist in a framework without health insurance and it would be difficult as a lay person to understand which of the diagnostic tests are CYA for the physician as opposed to a prudent set of diagnostics. You could opt out of the wrong ones just to save a few bucks -- and thanks for the example of why higher out-of-pocket costs aren't a good idea when it comes to health care.

[niyad]

38. you are joking, right? explain then, why there are so many homeless in this country, and so many

hungry--with food banks being overwhelmed.


PLEASE tell us you are joking with this post.

[cark]

43. Reason

The real reason is lack of adequate income. Realistically, how much cheaper can you expect food and housing to cost and how are these cuts going to absorbed? It is cheap, realatively.

[Luminous Animal]

39. Free market? Both food and shelter are heavily subsidized by the govt.

[annabanana]

47. "a wonderful job of providing abundant & affordable housing"?!?

are you high?

[barbtries]

49. move to CA

see how affordable housing is there.

[cark]

52. Move to Detriot

Buy a whole block of houses for $20.

[barbtries]

53. and try to find a job there.

disclaimer: i moved out of CA, my home for the first 52 years of my life, because of the cost of living. i'm in NC now and even though i landed a great job, still fighting from one paycheck to the next. it's hard everywhere and some places worse than others.

[NickB79]

111. Is that with or without the half-dozen crack addicts crapping in the master bedroom?

[Ignis]

68. "free market does a wonderful job"

Well, except on planet Earth, of course. :dunce:

[customerserviceguy]

81. Hmmm, government grocery stores

That reminds me of my first observation of Costco: Large quantities, low prices, and few if any choices. Its what communism would look like if it worked.

[Alcibiades]

93. Funny you should mention that

I used to go shopping in East Berlin quite a bit when we were stationed there, and Wal-Mart especially reminds me of what retail was like there in the better department stores before the wall came down. Even the decor seems a little familiar, though of course your average supercenter is better stocked than even the plushest store in East Berlin ever was. They also stocked a lot of things that you would never find at Wal-Mart today. The modern plastic things were shoddy, but many things were made using technology from fifty years ago. This meant that they were fairly expensive for the folks who didn't have access to black market Ostmarks, but many of the decorative items were hand made, the electronics, though clunky, were indestructible, and many of the clothes were made for people who probably didn't buy many clothes, but expected each item to last for several years.

The overall effect was strange. Some goods, such as books and records, were readily available at fairly low prices, some goods were available at prices most folks couldn't afford, and some of the more popular staple goods (i.e. food) were cheap but often hard to get.

[Dumak]

100. This insane, to compare the food market with the erection-difficulty market

If a consumer finds the price of a food item too high, there are hundreds if not thousands of alternatives.

With erection drugs, you have a handful of manufacturers (Viagra, Cialias, etc.). The companies that own these long-term patents are large and sophisticated. Collusion to create a virtual monopoly is a piece of cake for them. This is not working like the free market you are getting a boner over. It's a monopoly. Their patents need to be reduced to 3-5 years (expired by now). Then we'd have something resembling a free market.

[hobbit709]

23. Since when does the government regulate drug prices?

If they did the costs to the consumer wouldn't be sky-high.

[cark]

33. Regulating Prices

If you remove the reward (profit) you will unintentionally remove advancements and research. Researching and developing drugs is expensive and requires smart people. If the reward at the end of the day is just a 'well done' and small paycheck these smart people and their capital will go to other more financially promising areas - like Wall St.

We still live in a free country, attacking and hampering legal businesses that actually increase the quality of our life isn't what our government should be engaged in. I would love cheap drugs, but I would rather have expensive drugs than no drugs or fewer drugs. Other countries control the prices of drugs and that just pushes the prices up higher here. We are subsidizing other countries.

[hobbit709]

42. Right!! You got a bridge you're trying to sell?

[cark]

45. Negative consequences

Do you not anticipate any negative consequences to such a proposal? I'm not saying it won't help out to reduce costs in the short term, but what about longer term? I think it is an important question to understand.

[Hello_Kitty]

66. Most R and D is funded by the government

Pharmaceutical cos. spend 20X as much on advertising as they do on research.

[ohheckyeah]

95. bullshit...

pharmaceutical companies spend twice as much on advertising as research and development.

A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

[Selatius]

112. Sorry, but the corollary argument is there is no competition in the pharmaceutical industry.

If the free market is to work, there needs to be from time to time extreme anti-trust busting measures taken. This is something a lot of people who harp on about the free market either ignore or fail to understand. Competition falls off if no regulatory framework is in place to stop monopolies and unfair business practices from taking root.

[NickB79]

113. Most R&D is done by GOVERNMENT-FUNDED colleges and universities

And much of that is by unpaid college students working under underpaid college professors. I personally worked with my biochemistry professor, half a dozen other students majoring in biochem, and several collaborating researchers from Egypt on a new, potential chemotherapeutic agent for over a year when I was in college up until 2003. My professor drove a beat-up Honda, and none of us ever saw a dime of money from the long hours of work we put in. We did it for the grade and the experience. If that drug panned out, you can bet that a drug company would have swooped in, bought the rights to it for a song, put the finishing touches on it, and then went on to charge insanely high prices for it's use.

The BS argument that the poor lil' pharmaceutical companies couldn't make a profit without obscene drug fees is getting really old.

[kestrel91316]

29. I am currently car-free, and that is primarily by choice. I am unwilling to be

life-free, though you could say that's a choice too, I suppose. But I have car alternatives aplenty. There ARE no "life alternatives" that accomplish the same goals as real life.

[cark]

36. Yes people need access to HC

The point I was making was reforming the way HC insurance operates. It should cover insurance type stuff - expensive and unexpected.

[gaspee]

114. Methinks someone

IS taking an econ 101 course, LOL!

[malaise]

50. Please do not equate wanting a hard on to

needing an abortion.

That is all.

[chill_wind]

14. What I would give

to hear just one of our Congresswomen read that on the floor.

:-)


K & R.

[emulatorloo]

15. Cute, but what does Digby think of medicare paying for Vagifem? Treats atrophic vaginitis in menopau

sal women.

To me that is more equivalent to viagra than abortion.

Many many women suffer from that. I seriously doubt digby would want to deny women that medication.


===

As to digby's argument about the cost, most insurance plans limit the number of pills they will pay for to something like 10 or so a month.

I seriously doubt medicare is any different.

====

The stupak amendment is deplorable and it has to go. There are no need to make false cute analogies.

[gkhouston]

21. Out of curiosity, I checked my insurance formulary. Vagifem is covered. Viagra isn't.

I'll admit I'm surprised.

on edit: We're on an HMO plan, not Medicare.

[emulatorloo]

48. Interesting -- thanks for checking. I am glad to hear Vagifem is covered on the HMO plan

I am on a blue cross blue shield plan. Vagifem is of couse covered.

I had ED for about a year around 2005 because of another medical condition. ED drugs were covered but it was limited to I think 8 or 10 pills a month.

ED is easy to make fun of until you have to deal with it, especially as a couple.

Anyway, I get why it is fun to make a viagra analogy, but these two drugs help make the qualilty of life of the aging better.

====

I am optimistic they are going to get rid of stupak before the final bill. I think Stupak was grandstanding, and the only thing he wants is to be able to say to the fundy base is "OH WELL I TRIED"

I think we need to put pressure on the Reps and Senators to do so. Happily my Senator is one of the good guy, Tom Harkin. I am still going to call him every few days about it.

ONce that is done, there needs to be a strategy on challenging the HYDE amendment.

[kiva]

16. No tax money for elective erections!!

[chill_wind]

19. LOL!

[Obamanaut]

18. These words in the digby article made me laugh "And anyway, it's no biggie"

Once when I was a prison guard I over heard three inmates who were about to go home talking about what they planned on doing. Two of them had grandiose schemes involving multiple women. The third, a man in his fifties said quietly "Sex is overrated. I'm going fishing."

This has nothing to do with the discussion, but I thought it was an interesting anecdote.

[Pool Hall Ace]

123. I like it!

:spray:

[Starry Messenger]

22. They can purchase erection riders.

If they think they might want to have sex, they can just get extra coverage. I don't want my taxes going to this kind of frill.

[mlevans]

59. Oh my gods!...erection riders!

Actually I thought the most amusing line in the post was right under the price chart image..."Click to enlarge."

On a serious note, I agree with digby. Men who want to regulate women need a little self-regulation to balance things out. They should just take the matter in hand.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

98. OMG thats too perfect

I can think of other ways to describe it but you are quite tactful.

[bjobotts]

106. lol. So many word plays...thanks Digby, point well made.

[comtec]

24. One is a medical situation that can cause major life changes even death!

The other one is just pregnancy. *hides*

seriously though it's a false equivalent, Pregnancy can be very dangerous for women, even lethal - especially if unplanned/wanted!

Erectile dysfunction only causes depression...I'd say bye bye boner pills, hello MEDICAL procedure!

But as the feminists have it, i'm just a misogynist, so what do I know.

[supernova]

27. The point is to get men's attention

on the only issue they feel as equally strong about themselves.

[comtec]

34. It really is a noble effort, and I really do applaud it

But i'm afraid it's not even close, not even for the narcissistic assholes making the decisions.
they have so much bloody money and kick backs from their lobbyists, i doubt they even need to use insurance to get viagra =<[br />
I hope it gets the attention it deserves however.

Men should never have a say in this.

[global1]

25. It Will Never Happen - Half Of Congress Would Go Broke........

if they had to pay out of their own pocket.

[Blue State Blues]

30. The rationale of covering ED drugs isn't discrimination against women

it's protection for Pharma profits. Medicare has a large number of the drugs' target population and Medicare can't negotiate for a lower price. Thus, to protect the almighty profits of BIg Pharma, these drugs must be covered.

And frankly, other than the not being able to negotiate the price aspect, I don't have a problem with that.

The problem I have is that the medical privacy of the men who seek these "elective" treatments is absolutely respected, as it should be, but the medical privacy of women regarding their reproductive health is not only not upheld, it's treated as negotiable.

[supernova]

31. Wow, do you think she read my post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6973121&mesg_id=6973121

[boston bean]

67. No, I think she read mine, that was LOCKED here at DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6878199&mesg_id=6878199

[noiretextatique]

77. it's archived, not locked eom

[boston bean]

86. excellent, thanks for the info.. nt

[G_j]

37. Bob agrees

[MisterP]

96. ugh, Ron Paul had a child nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Do we really want fair? Do we really want to go there?

The lifetime cost of care for the average man is $268,700 (about $302 per month for life) while the lifetime cost of care for the average woman is $361,200 (or about $376 per month for life). About 40% of that $92,500 differential is due to the fact that women live longer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/

And that's *with* viagra.

Eliminating gender as a rating criteria is a huge tax increase on men, which we appear to be okay with.

[Lars39]

41. Damn straight we want fair...we want our entire body covered.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Fine. So do we.

How about you cover your body and I'll cover mine? Deal?

Your insurance will cost $376 per month for 80 years and mine will cost $302 for 74.

[Lars39]

60. I'm generous....I want men's bodies covered, too.

I want you to continue to have the full range of healthcare that you need. I expect the same.

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. I'm content to allow you four trips to the cookie jar for every three of mine.

because I think that healthcare reform is important enough to merit the sacrifice.

Women will arguably be harmed worse by rejecting healthcare reform, Stupak or not.

[Hello_Kitty]

62. Then I want a break on my premiums because I'm not going to have any babies.

Under the current system, I get an automatic uterus penalty just because I have one, even though I've used far less in health care services than my uterus-bearing counterparts who have procreated. As an intentionally childless woman I'm rather tired of being charged a higher rate to subsidize your ability to be a father.

Oh, and while we're on the topic, no matter what health care reform package gets passed, the lion's share of subsidies will go to people with children. How about I cover myself and you cover yourself and your own kids? Deal?

Or STFU.

[Lars39]

63. Nice.

What I want is a drastic reduction on everyone's premiums. We're still going to be paying much more than other countries.

[AllTooEasy]

84. BULLSHIT!!!

Having a uterus costs you LESS. Insurance companies automatically assume that if you have a uterus, you will live longer and the stats support that. As a result, they charge less.

Having kids also costs you more insurance. You don't pay the same for being childless, you pay LESS. As a parent.

so you should STFU or get your facts straight! I'm tired of fellow progressives using bullshit arguments to justify our agenda. Any clown on the right could easily debunk it and make us all look bad.

[Hello_Kitty]

88. I've sold health insurance.

Women of all ages pay more. You're confusing mortality with morbidity.

And families with children will get more subsidies than childless people under health care reform.

[AllTooEasy]

126. what's the bottom line

Okay, they WILL get more subsidies, but do the subsidies outweigh the cost? In other words (just example numbers), if the increased insurance cost is $500/year/child, but the gov't only subsidizes $400/year/child then having children still costs more. I don't think the govt will subsidize $500+/year/child in this case.

So why is my wife paying less than me? We both have 20 year terms. I was told by the insurance company that they reason her mortality at any age to be less than mine, even though we are both in perfect health.

[Hello_Kitty]

127. 20 year terms? That's life insurance. Again, totally different.

Life insurance premiums are based on mortality. Health and long term care insurance premiums are based on the likelihood that you will use health or nursing care.

Here's a handy calculator of the plans: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

I plugged in 40 yo single adult in the House plan and my premium would be $3500 a year. I don't qualify for a subsidy.

Same age, same income as head of a family of four my portion of the premium is $1828. The full cost of the premium is $9435, with the government subsidizing $7606 of it.

So don't tell me parents won't be paying less and getting subsidized more.

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. Living longer is more expensive.

Insurance companies charge women more because more money is spent on women's care.

[Luminous Animal]

44. I wonder what the cost is to keep so many men in prison?

Using gender as a criteria, the prison industrial complex is a huge tax on women which we appear to be okay with.

[barbtries]

54. i love this response

:yourock:

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Since men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime...

... it is arguable that prisons are primarily for mens benefit.

So maybe you have a point, maybe we should reduce sentences since it's men that long prison terms are primarily meant to protect.

:popcorn:

[Hello_Kitty]

64. You've just demonstrated that prisons are primarily for men's benefit by that statement

Men perpetrate most of the violent crimes and are the victims of most of them. Therefore, if you can argue that men are unfairly taxed to subsidize women's longer lives then we can argue that we are unfairly taxed to subsidize prisons.

[AllTooEasy]

85. Be careful, conservative Whites use that same argument ...

...about being unfairly taxed. "If crimes are dispropotionately committed by Blacks on Blacks, then Blacks should pay for them".

Always anticipate the counter argument from the right.

[debbierlus]

99. well, everyone knows a girl is worth a dozen boys

So, it evens out just fine

:)

[Egnever]

61. Works for me

I am shocked honestly that viagra is paid for by health insurance. I doubt you will find many people oposed to stoping payment on viagra. I could be wrong of course but as a guy it wouldnt bother me one bit to remove coverage for it.

Having sex is not necesary for your health, Of course neither is having an elective abortion but I wouldnt mind if abortions were paid for.

[Uncle Joe]

65. Government health coverage for the treatment of erectile dysfunction is protected

as an unalienable right in the Preamble of the Constitution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x398987

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[kpete]

70. thanks

for the thanks and the link, Uncle Joe
peace, kp

[Flubadubya]

71. So... Boehner upholds the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Boners!!

:evilgrin:

[Guilded Lilly]

75. Has anyone said "DAMN STRAIGHT" yet?

(got to hope there is always room for a little sense of humor wordplay!)

The female sensibility in me agrees wholeheartedly with this very witty response. Yeah, "dudes", handle it yourself! (tut-tut)... or give women the same respect and support for something that is extremely important to their well being as well.

And there IS a correlation if you seriously look at both physical and mental issues (ED and an unwanted pregnancy) and put the gender wars a bit to the side for a moment. Create a system that will pay for them both. We pay for multitudes of problems that anyone has that might not ever affect our own lives.

The fact that the C Street mentality has become more powerful than the will and needs of the people of this country is bone chilling. (no that was not a pun!)

The bigger point is, as I see it (which means no one else HAS to see it ;)) that these two men were pretty damn crafty throwing this amendment in there at the last moment, knowing full well it would become the object of outrageously divided discourse. ANYTHING to throw a wrench into the system that might take away the Insurance company profit, devalue women's rights to their OWN bodies, advance white man's control over everything (especially a bi-racial President), and actually make things easier on the *little* people outside the beltway to actually improve their chances for a healthier, more decent life.(who are they to these officials anyway except when voting time comes around?)

It worked...dragging in the separation of Church and State, pitting women's rights against men's rights, shifting the attention to gender and religious wars and in the process screwing with desparately needed reform.

WE ALL will get screwed.

blah blah blah, Lilly, shut up now!(getting off of my soapbox)

peace,
Lilly

[ThomCat]

72. That is awesome!

Seriously though, if these morons really think that women's sex lives should be micromanaged and legislated then the law should not be favoring men by paying for erection pills. That is blatant hypocrisy.

[TCJ70]

73. Let's just not pay for either...

...unless the procedure/medication will keep a body working as intended or save a life.

[Hekate]

74. Digby read my mind! If it's Gawd's Will for every pregnancy to be carried to term regardless...

... then it sure as shootin' is Gawd's Will that some men be impotent and some couples be infertile. All our bodily procreative functions are in Gawd's Hands, and we mere mortals don't get to pick and choose among the options.

:eyes: Right?

Hekate

[KamaAina]

79. Does it cost twice as much to make now as it did ten years ago?

Is there a shortage of whatever they use to make it?

Well? Why does it cost twice as much now? Overall consumer prices haven't doubled in ten years. They're just price-gouging because they have all these flaccid Republican men over a barrel. :eyes:

[Mithreal]

80. Amazing K&R

[quaker bill]

82. .... pay for it yourself...

sounds fine to me.

[AllTooEasy]

83. a face lift is legal and a medical procedure...should I pay for that?

I AGREE that if abortion is not covered, then no contraceptive procedure (for men or women) should be covered, but that argument (legality of a medical procedure) is BOGUS. Why not male pectorial implants or permanent eye liner? Tattoos?!

[pmorlan1]

87. LOL

LOL. I love Digby!

[defendandprotect]

89. Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for this ---

[parasearchers]

116. I Agree, Digby is stupid as hell.

Let's consign Diabetics, Depressives, a whole class of men to losing some measure of quality of life. Yeah makes real sense. While we are at it, lets start talking other "elective" treatments. We could start looking at EVERYTHING on a cost basis.

[boston bean]

118. oh yes, you are correct, but if the wimminz are the ones being denied, It's AOK at the mighty

corrall.

[tonysam]

91. "Digby" is dumber than a box of rocks

When will bloggers stop with the misinformation about abortion and federal money?

[kath]

92. Way to go, Digby! WOOT!!

[femrap]

97. Someone told me today...

that the penis is passe. War will soon be obsolete. And cooperation is going to spring from the Earth and Life will be good.

[earcandle]

101. I find this almost impossible to believe they have gotten away with taking away water and putting it

in bottles so that you can have erectile dysfunction and pay
this much to get it back rather than do a little investigation
to learn what is happening to your body and compare that with
what happened to your parents bodies and realize that you are
self-curing and don't need this poison.  Please don't be so
gullible.  

well.  i am sure i have blind spots too.... sorry this has
happened.  somebody ought to be held accountable. 

[libodem]

107. You said Bayner

Hee hee.

[caseymoz]

108. So, the cost of an erection on the free market is $14.57 now.

I could remember when it came out and insurance companies did not want to pay for it, and it made absolutely no sense that they should, and only from popular male outcry did they give in. And so from there, the price inflated.

Your right, if God hates abortion, he can't have any use for those extraneous, sinful boners either.

[Hubert Flottz]

109. Good

I'm tired of dragging those bath tubs down to the beach every day anyway!

[4_TN_TITANS]

117. "After all, I won't ever need such a pill"

That's what I used to think too, and before reaching 40 I need such pills. Of course I believe in women's reproductive rights 100% but those who make fun of ED have never suffered the embarassment and disappointment - but most of you will. Of course my wife of 17 years understands, but she likes a substantial 'boner' every now and then as part of her 'reproductive rights'.

sheesh...

[boston bean]

122. don't go gettin so upset.....

now you know how it feels to have your health issues in the moral parade....

[whathehell]

119. That's right...The government doesn't owe you a free

hard-on...Nor a "subsidized" one!

Hell, if you get into the moral issue...How do I know it's a "moral" hard-on?...I mean, fundies might consider non-married hard-ons (at least those deliberately brought on) as "immoral"!

[my2sense]

Cosign n/t

[my2sense]

120. Cosign n/t

[my2sense]

121. Cosign n/t