Contraception and Viagra, why one but not the other?

[copestag]

well to specifically address the question posed in the topic.... since nobody seems to have yet..... there is a very clear distinction to those opposed to paying for someone elses contraception..... that being the religious groups who dont want their insurance to cover it for moral reasons (you of course remember thats the issue, not this whole anti-woman campaign the left wants it to be)

it boils down quite simply

contraception- prevents pregnancy (against the moral practices of some religions)

viagra- does not prevent pregnancy, or specifically cause any other immoral act (for that matter it actually assists in conception)

so for those who this entire issue concerns (the religious groups with moral issues.... you do of course remember these are the only groups involved here...... not this whole republicans hate women BS the left wants it to be)

contraceptives= bad......... viagra= who cares (unless youre using it immorally)

youre trying to compare 2 totally unrelated things

 

[TxGoat]

well to specifically address the question posed in the topic.... since nobody seems to have yet..... there is a very clear distinction to those opposed to paying for someone elses contraception..... that being the religious groups who dont want their insurance to cover it for moral reasons (you of course remember thats the issue, not this whole anti-woman campaign the left wants it to be)

it boils down quite simply

contraception- prevents pregnancy (against the moral practices of some religions)

viagra- does not prevent pregnancy, or specifically cause any other immoral act (for that matter it actually assists in conception)

so for those who this entire issue concerns (the religious groups with moral issues.... you do of course remember these are the only groups involved here...... not this whole republicans hate women BS the left wants it to be)

contraceptives= bad......... viagra= who cares (unless youre using it immorally)

youre trying to compare 2 totally unrelated things

This is why the discussion should also include women. Birth control also helps some women cope with PMS symptoms. I'm guessing you didn't know that based on your post. If the right wing is trying to let religious groups impose their beliefs onto their employees' healthcare benefits, (the biggest issue here being recreational sex that is not used for procreation) then why isn't viagra not being discussed as well? It just seems like a double-standard to me.

 

[BabyBlues]

Because it is a double standard. The fact that the pill can help with other factors in a woman's life is not going to be taken into consideration. But if the man's mini-me can't have help getting to the party then its a national tragedy.
Insurance companies should not be able to pick and choose what they will subsidize. Either you cover it all or you cover none of it. If a catholic doesn't want to take birth control then don't. But if I want to take it then please shut your trap and move aside at the pharmacy counter.

 

[copestag]

This is why the discussion should also include women. Birth control also helps some women cope with PMS symptoms. I'm guessing you didn't know that based on your post. If the right wing is trying to let religious groups impose their beliefs onto their employees' healthcare benefits, (the biggest issue here being recreational sex that is not used for procreation) then why isn't viagra not being discussed as well? It just seems like a double-standard to me.

yes a side effect of the pill is it 'can' help some women with their PMS symptoms........ but many better drugs can as well

cocaine can help with a lot of symptoms also

crystal meth has health benefits

heroine has health benefits

are we going to take the least common denominator of a drugs abilities and consider that a good reason to call it an awesome drug?

but thats not really even remotely close to the point is it????????

there are other belief systems in the world and some of them believe that birth control is immoral.... Im guessing you didnt know that based on your post

I bet..... no I dont need to bet.... Ive seen it with my own eyes on these forums..... you would argue a womans right to choose for herself when it comes to abortion...... yet you would deny a religions right to choose their own moral belief system?

take a step back for a minute and look at the big picture.... not everyone thinks the way you do...... and their belief is no more or no less valid than yours

NOBODY is preventing anyone from using birth control........ not a religion on the planet is preventing it......what they are doing is telling you its against the religious practices that you (obviously not YOU personally) choose to participate in

think of it another way....... religion is a club..... you arent being told that you MUST abide by the rules of the club....... you are simply being told that if you DO NOT abide by the rules then you CAN NOT be a member of the club

now if you can explain to me 1 good reason that a private entity........ which happens to be a religious organization (a constitutionally protected organization)..... should be forced to pay for something that violates one of their deepest core beliefs..... in the name of recreational sex (cant seem to remember anything in the constitution about getting your jollies off)...... Im all ears

 

[TxGoat]

Because it is a double standard. The fact that the pill can help with other factors in a woman's life is not going to be taken into consideration. But if the man's mini-me can't have help getting to the party then its a national tragedy.
Insurance companies should not be able to pick and choose what they will subsidize. Either you cover it all or you cover none of it. If a catholic doesn't want to take birth control then don't. But if I want to take it then please shut your trap and move aside at the pharmacy counter.

Well if you're going to sugar coat it....

All kidding aside, it's good to get a woman's perspective in here. A man can argue for or against contraceptives until he's blue in the face, but until there's a way for a man to experience EVERYTHING that a woman experiences then we should never get to decide what is in their best interest.

yes a side effect of the pill is it 'can' help some women with their PMS symptoms........ but many better drugs can as well

cocaine can help with a lot of symptoms also

crystal meth has health benefits

heroine has health benefits

are we going to take the least common denominator of a drugs abilities and consider that a good reason to call it an awesome drug?

but thats not really even remotely close to the point is it????????

there are other belief systems in the world and some of them believe that birth control is immoral.... Im guessing you didnt know that based on your post

I bet..... no I dont need to bet.... Ive seen it with my own eyes on these forums..... you would argue a womans right to choose for herself when it comes to abortion...... yet you would deny a religions right to choose their own moral belief system?

take a step back for a minute and look at the big picture.... not everyone thinks the way you do...... and their belief is no more or no less valid than yours

NOBODY is preventing anyone from using birth control........ not a religion on the planet is preventing it......what they are doing is telling you its against the religious practices that you (obviously not YOU personally) choose to participate in

think of it another way....... religion is a club..... you arent being told that you MUST abide by the rules of the club....... you are simply being told that if you DO NOT abide by the rules then you CAN NOT be a member of the club

now if you can explain to me 1 good reason that a private entity........ which happens to be a religious organization (a constitutionally protected organization)..... should be forced to pay for something that violates one of their deepest core beliefs..... in the name of recreational sex (cant seem to remember anything in the constitution about getting your jollies off)...... Im all ears

I emboldened the error in your post. No one is saying THEY can not practice THEIR OWN set of morals. It's them trying to IMPOSE THEIR MORALS onto their employees. When you go to work for someone, you have made a contract with an employer to do your tasks within the hours that you and them have agreed upon. They have no right to govern your private life unless you're in a position where negative publicity could be harmful to the company. And if you are in that type of position then I definitely hope you're being compensated well.

Since you like examples, here's one, what if you were a regional manager of the company Chik-Fil-A and they don't believe in working on Sundays (none of their stores are opened on Sundays because they don't believe in it). One of the VPs of Chik-Fil-A sees you mowing your lawn on a Sunday, or working on your car. The next day you're fired because they believe that their employees are to follow their belief system. So what you're saying is you'd have NO PROBLEM with them firing you for working on a Sunday?

 

[copestag]

I emboldened the error in your post. No one is saying THEY can not practice THEIR OWN set of morals. It's them trying to IMPOSE THEIR MORALS onto their employees. When you go to work for someone, you have made a contract with an employer to do your tasks within the hours that you and them have agreed upon. They have no right to govern your private life unless you're in a position where negative publicity could be harmful to the company. And if you are in that type of position then I definitely hope you're being compensated well.

Since you like examples, here's one, what if you were a regional manager of the company Chik-Fil-A and they don't believe in working on Sundays (none of their stores are opened on Sundays because they don't believe in it). One of the VPs of Chik-Fil-A sees you mowing your lawn on a Sunday, or working on your car. The next day you're fired because they believe that their employees are to follow their belief system. So what you're saying is you'd have NO PROBLEM with them firing you for working on a Sunday?

see once again youre confusing yourself..... its OK.... it cant be easy to understand something so simple

they are NOT trying to impose their moral belief system on their employees.... they are simply saying that they are not going to PAY for their employees immoral behaviour

whats being said here is very clear..... not one person has argued that the employees of religious organizations should be forbidden from using contraceptives.... they are simply saying they will not pay for them...... yes very confusing I know

as for your example........ again.... WAY OFF...... this is not a case of an employer telling their employees what they can or cannot do... this is an employer telling them they are not going to pay for what they choose to do recreationally if it violates their moral practices

a better example would be:

Im wanting to lose weight.... one of the side effects of sex is that it burns a lot of calories..... I would like my employer to pay for me to enjoy some hookers........ this of course is only so I can lose weight..... its not about the sex

pretty simple really............... PAY FOR IT YOURSELF

 

[breadnatty08]

A better example would be:

Im wanting to lose weight.... one of the side effects of sex is that it burns a lot of calories..... I would like my employer to pay for me to enjoy some hookers........ this of course is only so I can lose weight..... its not about the sex

pretty simple really............... PAY FOR IT YOURSELF

This analogy is fine. But, how would it go for men wanting Viagra?

I want to have sex.....my unit is inadequate....I need my employer to pay for it to stand strong

You know, whether it's with a consenting partner in order to procreate or simply for pleasure it's still covered. This is the difference. If you think Viagra is helping men procreate as their respective religion would desire, a lot of it is used for aging men where I'm very skeptical that's what their goal is.

 

[gamblor01]

This analogy is fine. But, how would it go for men wanting Viagra?

I want to have sex.....my unit is inadequate....I need my employer to pay for it to stand strong

You know, whether it's with a consenting partner in order to procreate or simply for pleasure it's still covered. This is the difference. If you think Viagra is helping men procreate as their respective religion would desire, a lot of it is used for aging men where I'm very skeptical that's what their goal is.

Probably shouldn't get involved here but I'm glad someone else agrees with me about this. Does anyone know if these same institutions are forced to cover viagra? I don't, but I think covering it at all is total hypocrisy. You might argue that it helps some men with ED have children, so it's ok because it is used for procreation. That may be true for some men but I have to believe this is the exception and not the rule. I seriously doubt there are a bunch of 60+ year old men out there who desperately want a child. Chances are they either already have grandchildren, or will soon.

So yes, contraception can be used to prevent extreme periods, treat ovarian cysts, etc. One of my girlfriends in high school used to take it because her periods were so painful and believe me, we never had sex (not that I wasn't trying). But I think this is the minority usage. But so what? It's a total double standard to cover viagra and not contraception.

I don't know that the government should be forcing institutions to cover contraceptives if that is against their beliefs. But if that same institution chooses to cover viagra (because I don't believe there is any law that mandates coverage for it) then that is just discriminatory, and it is illegal for an employer to discriminate based on gender.

The problem is that rarely are issues as black and white as the politicians make them out to be. But it makes for better politics to polarize the nation. They are all crooks and liars if you ask me.

 

[BabyBlues]

They are all crooks and liars if you ask me.

This about sums it up

 

[OutofDate1980]

The topic is insurance coverage for reproductive health care. As contraception and abortion are matters of health I don't understand the claims I shouldn't pay for it and/or it's against my religious tenets.

Health insurance covers medical care, reproductive health has and is medical care. Your employee or yourself provides this insurance, now mandated by law and reproductive care is part of the services that insurance must cover.

No one is forced to claim payment for any medical procedure, if a religious organization is opposed to a medical procedure then it's their responsibility to persuade it's members not to utilize said medical procedures. It's not the government's role to enforce said organizations tenets upon its members.

If an organization doesn't wish to obey the law, then they should withdraw from public commerce. Only the government is mandated to provide education, private organizations may also provide this service, but are not mandated to.

 

[9to5cynic]

What about this as a possible solution, resolving the issue for all parties involved.

My proposal is fairly simple, a new form of currency. The religious entity that is morally opposed to so many things (contraceptives, drugs, and I would assume alcohol <but I'm no religious scholar>) would pay their employees with a currency related to them (catholic coins or something like that, name it a good name and everyone is on board). So as Johnny B picks up his paycheck from the Catholic Clothes Store, they hand him a check worth 500 CC. He brings in his bills that are due, and the newly constructed Catholic Church Store pays the bills with US currency for him, taking some of his Catholic Coin in a form of exchange. Then Johnny can buy all of his approved product from this store, because we'd hate for his moral fibers to break.

So we've now got those opposed to this taken care of, so what about those in favor. Well, this actually takes care of that too. Because we'd just set up some sort of proxy company. Church organizations buy insurance from X. and X from Y. Y is providing all the coverage. No one has any clue what they are really getting from Y except the employee. Everybody wins. What you don't know can't hurt you right?

Okay, so there is probably a bit of sarcasm thrown in here to lighten the mood of an otherwise touchy subject, but I think this is applicable. Just like Swift's A Modest Proposal.

-----------------

Okay, so, back to the issue. On page one, someone posted that despite religious tenants, religious companies are still required to abide by US laws in regards to taxes, healthcare and employee benefits. I think that sums up the issue. It's law, deal with it.

It isn't infringing on the right of the religious, it is protecting the rights of everyone. That's the way I look at it.

And should we be surprised by the double standard negatively impacting women? No, it's been going on for centuries.

As a man, I'm sorry women that we are giving you the short end of the stick. Forgive us someday, okay?

 

[copestag]

the point is youre trying to create a strawman by bringing up viagra

religious employers are opposed to the mandate because they will be paying for something that violates one of their core beliefs

they dont care about viagra....... it has nothing to do with the subject whatsoever

but to satisfy the curiousity of those confusedly believing in some double standard.........

these same groups also oppose paying for vasectomies and condoms...... no strawman there.... unlike the viagra argument

 

[9to5cynic]

Okay, but birth control can be used to provide relief to women with heavy periods. Just like viagra could be used for recreation sex.

Instead of getting "the pill" or "birth control" women should just ask for a pill of estrogen and progestin. It doesn't have the (I guess) negative association of 'controlling' birth.

I guess I just don't understand this issue. To me it seems like a 'no-brainer' and should be solely up to the woman.

--
EDIT:
Okay, so I've got another question. Why is preventing pregnancy 'bad' on a religious ethic level? Is it because they are tampering with something that should be left to god? That's how I would view this, but (again) I'm not a religious scholar.

I can see how a religion wouldn't want a mortal tampering with the divine workings of their deity. But is it not also the divine workings of said deity if a particular man can't stand at full attention?

To me, assisting in conception and trying to prevent it are one in the same. Pregnancy isn't 100% regardless, and no contraception is 100% either. So, if it really was God's Will, then it would happen regardless right?

--
EDIT2: Last Edit, I swear.

yes a side effect of the pill is it 'can' help some women with their PMS symptoms........ but many better drugs can as well

but we could also say that extreme pornography 'can' help a man with his ED symptoms.... so should that also be covered?

 

[TxGoat]

see once again youre confusing yourself..... its OK.... it cant be easy to understand something so simple

they are NOT trying to impose their moral belief system on their employees.... they are simply saying that they are not going to PAY for their employees immoral behaviour

whats being said here is very clear..... not one person has argued that the employees of religious organizations should be forbidden from using contraceptives.... they are simply saying they will not pay for them...... yes very confusing I know

as for your example........ again.... WAY OFF...... this is not a case of an employer telling their employees what they can or cannot do... this is an employer telling them they are not going to pay for what they choose to do recreationally if it violates their moral practices

a better example would be:

Im wanting to lose weight.... one of the side effects of sex is that it burns a lot of calories..... I would like my employer to pay for me to enjoy some hookers........ this of course is only so I can lose weight..... its not about the sex

pretty simple really............... PAY FOR IT YOURSELF

Then answer just ONE question, yes or no. If a company is owned by someone whose religion doesn't believe in ANY medical treatments, then is that company exempt from providing ANY medical coverage to its employees?

 

[breadnatty08]

I can see how a religion wouldn't want a mortal tampering with the divine workings of their deity. But is it not also the divine workings of said deity if a particular man can't stand at full attention?

Well, unfortunately, you can make this argument for nearly every form of medicine. I think like it was brought up earlier, Viagra can (should?) be used in the aid of procreating. Is this generally the case? Of course not, but I think that's what the church is "thinking".
While birth control "can" be used solely for the aid in heavy periods etc., it's "side effects" also include blocking a pregnancy-no good.

 

[seaking]

it might be covered by insurance but most likely only pays for less than a percent of the price, and who's going to dispute the viagra with insurance on the phone?

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Then answer just ONE question, yes or no. If a company is owned by someone whose religion doesn't believe in ANY medical treatments, then is that company exempt from providing ANY medical coverage to its employees?

Before Obamacare - no companies are REQUIRED to provide health insurance, right? So I guess that makes the answer .... YES.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

This is what you get when you mix politics, religion, healthcare, and sex...a cluster****! (sorry, but no other way to put it...and I did "bleep" it)

Politicians should stay in politics and leave the healthcare, religion, and sex out of it...

In my opinion...if an insurance company don't wanna pay for contraceptives they should pay for the alternatives (getting "fixed")...for both men and women. They may do this...I don't know...my wife gets "the pill" for other reasons, as do many other women...in these cases, the pill is truly "health" care and should be covered.

Viagra...should NEVER be paid for by an insurance company...thats just plain and simple...when your "stuff" quits working...face it, the fun is over.

That said...I hope mine still works when I'm 90, but if it don't thats OK too...I figure I got plenty when I was younger, that'll have to do me.

My Grandad (the man who raised me) used to say...you will only get so many erections in your life (he did not call them erections)...so don't waste them.

You see, he understood that all good things must come to an end...we get old, its a fact of life.

EDITED TO ADD: That may read in a way that says I'm against religion...I'm not, I was raised a Baptist...and know the Bible quite well...religion is very important, more so than politics...but the 2 just don't mix very well (history proves this)

 

[9to5cynic]

when your "stuff" quits working...face it, the fun is over.

That applies to many things too, like phones. ;D
And it would make a great sig.


Back on topic, I do like your idea of a choice. If you don't cover A, you must cover B. So that way people can still get the care they need, even if it isn't how they'd like it. OR, people should get $XXX towards healthcare and should be able to pick what they'd like. So the work knows that Johnny B. got $XXX towards his heathcare plan, but that's all they'd know.

 

[A.Nonymous]

That applies to many things too, like phones. ;D
And it would make a great sig.


Back on topic, I do like your idea of a choice. If you don't cover A, you must cover B. So that way people can still get the care they need, even if it isn't how they'd like it. OR, people should get $XXX towards healthcare and should be able to pick what they'd like. So the work knows that Johnny B. got $XXX towards his heathcare plan, but that's all they'd know.

I think that would be a nice compromise. Problem is people would spend all of it on frivolous things and then get pissed when they were actually sick, but couldn't get coverage. Sure they had used all their money on elective surgeries, but that's irrevlevant. They're sick and should be covered right? And some employers would argue that since they're footing the bill it's not unreasonable that they have some say in how the money is spent. That's not too unreasonable either. I like the idea though.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Interesting how the Catholic Church changes its beliefs around the world. In Africa they want gays hanged or jailed, but in Europe they can deal with them, as long as they don't marry. Likewise, in Europe Catholic hospitals give out contraception and Catholic schools give comprehensive sex-ed, but in America its immoral and wrong?

Then again, the world was flat and 6000 years old, then suddenly it wasn't.

Back on topic, I do like your idea of a choice. If you don't cover A, you must cover B. So that way people can still get the care they need, even if it isn't how they'd like it. OR, people should get $XXX towards healthcare and should be able to pick what they'd like. So the work knows that Johnny B. got $XXX towards his heathcare plan, but that's all they'd know.

Yup, and how about, instead of placing the burden on struggling business, the government contributes that money, and works to keep premiums low and comprehensive. Or yano, the normal thing in much of the world.

 

[TxGoat]

Interesting how the Catholic Church changes its beliefs around the world. In Africa they want gays hanged or jailed, but in Europe they can deal with them, as long as they don't marry. Likewise, in Europe Catholic hospitals give out contraception and Catholic schools give comprehensive sex-ed, but in America its immoral and wrong?

Then again, the world was flat and 6000 years old, then suddenly it wasn't.


Yup, and how about, instead of placing the burden on struggling business, the government contributes that money, and works to keep premiums low and comprehensive. Or yano, the normal thing in much of the world.

It would be nice if we could take the profit motive out of the healthcare industry, but I think it's such a large industry now that those in the industry won't let their tidy profits go without a fight. Our healthcare system is definitely broken in the U.S. I can't go to my general care practitioner without seeing pens with pharmaceutical names, calendars with allergy medicine names, and clocks with cholesterol lowering medicine names on it. When you're sick, you'll pay just about any price to get better, and I personally think it's a moral issue.

 

[ylexot]

For me, I think employers should be free to provide whatever health insurance plan they want (or none at all). If it doesn't cover what you want, opt out of it and buy your own or buy a supplemental plan.

Actually, I think the best system would be if no employers (nor the gov) provided coverage. People should choose (or not choose) whatever insurance they want.

 

[ElasticNinja]

It would be nice if we could take the profit motive out of the healthcare industry, but I think it's such a large industry now that those in the industry won't let their tidy profits go without a fight. Our healthcare system is definitely broken in the U.S. I can't go to my general care practitioner without seeing pens with pharmaceutical names, calendars with allergy medicine names, and clocks with cholesterol lowering medicine names on it. When you're sick, you'll pay just about any price to get better, and I personally think it's a moral issue.

Haha, well, dont be so naive to think that's not the case in Europe too. That's a rubbish indicator of how good or bad your healthcare system is I've seen that everywhere.

You're right about the rest of course. Dont think people dont profit from "non-profit" healthcare providers too.

 

[Member243850]

It would be nice if we could take the profit motive out of the healthcare industry,

Hmm I dunno man,

I think If you think like that, then why bother doing anything that gives you a reward at all?

Reward system works pretty much in everyday life and it is the only thing at the end of the day that makes the world go round.

If no one is going to get a profit / reward at the end of the day then nothing would get done... simple as that I guess.

"Money makes the world go round"

But to get back on the topic,

I think there is no problem with a business / company selling you something that covers Viagra but does not cover "the pill".

And I think your topic is slightly slightly flawed in a way...

Because one is to have sex... and one is to prevent the birth of a child / pregnancy... (most of the time but not always)

They are 2 very different things.

Yes they might both result in "having a good time" but they are not the same thing.

Let me explain,

Some people that are not old can have erectile dysfunction... it is not just old people.

Some people that have diabetes... kidney failure... smokers... anti depressant drugs can cause it too (I have personal experience with this)... they can have erectile dysfunction even though they are not old.

Ia m very young and have sexual problems because of my anti depressant drugs....

Some times it is not the persons fault that they can't get it up...

Some times Viagra is actually needed to help people that have sexual problems but can't do it naturally other wise... simply put.

If you want to get technical... Viagra is NOT only for recreational purposes...

It has constructive uses for people that other wise can't get it up that is beyond their controll.

Source:

Erectile dysfunction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you saying that Viagra is only used for fun???

That is how I read it.

but in any event... if you don't like their services then it is simple, don't buy their services.

That is the beauty of a free society.

I hope I am not being rude here.

If you don't like their services then just don't buy their insurance services.

Or better yet... if it bothers you so much why not start your own business / company that works in insurance and provide what ever services you want to for the world???

If it is such an irritating thing in your life... then surely you should make your own company that would offer better services?

I hope I am not being rude just saying what I think is correct