Contraception and Viagra, why one but not the other?

[TxGoat]

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.

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

The only reason I'd like to see profit removed is you see doctors over-prescribing medicine to patients, you go to a hospital to visit a deathly sick relative and they charge you to park your vehicle. You're not going to refuse to pay, because you have a loved one clinging to life. Yes, it's a pipe dream, but I think it's easier to gouge people when their health hangs in the balance. I'm not even going to mention how they mostly treat the symptom and don't really address the condition. Like the saying goes, there's no money in the cure.




NSW

Spoiler

Chris Rock - Doctors & Drugs - YouTube

 

[mpw]

...I wonder if some men (and sadly some women) understand that contraception isn't just used to prevent pregnancy...

You at the same time undermine and support your own argument there.

You undermine it because you're wrong; contraception is only ever used to prevent pregnancy.

But I think your highlighting a misunderstanding which could be the answer. The insurance companies should be covering the treatment of an illness, not the supply of a medicine.

Surely they should cover illness X, not the supply of medicine Y?

 

[A.Nonymous]

You at the same time undermine and support your own argument there.

You undermine it because you're wrong; contraception is only ever used to prevent pregnancy.

But I think your highlighting a misunderstanding which could be the answer. The insurance companies should be covering the treatment of an illness, not the supply of a medicine.

Surely they should cover illness X, not the supply of medicine Y?

???

Since when?

 

[mpw]

???

Since when?

?????

I don't have an exact date, but at least 23years

 

[TxGoat]

?????

I don't have an exact date, but at least 23years

Are you talking outside of the United States or in a southern red state where women's reproductive health is as oppressed as a gay disabled minority with a lisp?

Adolescent girls and young women are frequently prescribed birth control pills for irregular or absent menstrual periods, menstrual cramps, acne, PMS, endometriosis, and for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Girls who are diagnosed with PCOS are often prescribed oral contraceptives to lower their hormone levels and regulate their menstrual periods.

Birth control pills (sometimes called

 

[TxGoat]

Stating that contraception ("the pill" since this thread is in reference to THAT specific form of contraception) is ONLY prescribed for birth control is a false statement. You're more than welcome to site references to back up your statement. You state it's been 23 years, so feel free to post any references to back up that claim.

 

[mpw]

Aspirin is a pain killer, yet Aspirin can be prescribed to people with no pain to lessen their risk of heart attack. This is because it is a drug with more than the one use for which it is normally prescribed.

A contraceptive is just that; a contraceptive. A drug(in pill form) designed to prevent pregnancy. The same drug may also be prescribed for other uses, but this prescription is NOT to prevent pregnancy and therefore the prescription is not a contraceptive.

Which is what I said originally, insurance cover should be for the treatment, not the medicine.

If a new drug came out that cost $10 and was designed to give you slightly more attractive elbows, I would hope no insurance company would approve its use through their health plans.

But what if it was found that a side effect of the elbow beautifier was a cure for cancer; do they deny it's prescription because it's just an elbow drug?

 

[A.Nonymous]

?????

I don't have an exact date, but at least 23years

Contraception is regularly used to regulate periods among women who aren't even sexually active. The Pill is also used to address all kinds of various diseases.

 

[copestag]

I think youre missing his point....... its impossible to prescribe contraceptives for any purpose other than preventing pregnancy..... by definition contraception means prevent pregnancy

hes calling out semantics in the characterization

if you want to say the pill or any other drug can be used for other purposes then say the pill or the other drug descriptor

contraceptives can only be used for contraception..... prevention of pregnancy

his other point is drugs should be prescribed to treat illnesses...... not broad prescriptions to cover any side effects

if you want to prescribe the pill for <insert side effect here> then do so...... but dont do so under the false pretense that its contraception and it should be free

of course that opens a whole new ball of wax....... because most of these drugs arent approved for treatment of their side effects....... so without the false pretense of claiming its for contraception... most of these prescriptions would be illegal

 

[TxGoat]

I think youre missing his point....... its impossible to prescribe contraceptives for any purpose other than preventing pregnancy..... by definition contraception means prevent pregnancy

hes calling out semantics in the characterization

if you want to say the pill or any other drug can be used for other purposes then say the pill or the other drug descriptor

contraceptives can only be used for contraception..... prevention of pregnancy

his other point is drugs should be prescribed to treat illnesses...... not broad prescriptions to cover any side effects

if you want to prescribe the pill for <insert side effect here> then do so...... but dont do so under the false pretense that its contraception and it should be free

of course that opens a whole new ball of wax....... because most of these drugs arent approved for treatment of their side effects....... so without the false pretense of claiming its for contraception... most of these prescriptions would be illegal

A lot of drugs are approved to treat just the symptom and not the root cause. Look at most of the antacid medication out there, it mostly neutralizes the acid, but it doesn't address why our body is creating that excess acid.

I can't imagine what the healthcare industry would do if the government decided to ban all medications that didn't treat the actual disease, but just treated the symptom. You'd have to get rid of most cold/flu medicines.

 

[copestag]

very true......... and butterflies are approved to prevent frowns

HOWEVER

these medications are not approved to treat the symptoms for which they are being used.......... they are approved as contraceptives...... the doctors prescribe them as contraceptives deceptively in the knowledge that they will alleviate the symptoms of another issue (assuming they actually do.... not being a physician or pharmacist I do not know..... of course neither does the doctor since he only takes the drugmakers word for it anyhow)

just applying common sense logic here but if these drugs can do all these wonderful things....... and drugmakers are such greedy Aholes....... why havent they pursued this course to begin with? makes you believe there are very specific reasons why 'the pill' isnt prescribed as PMS medicine

to bring it full circle..... using your logic.... viagra should be a higher priority than any contraceptive...... after all...... if we're going by side effects as the reasoning.... I think you would agree that obesity and the related health issues associated (to numerous to name them all..... many of which are life threatening) is a far worse issue in this country than women with cramps...... and we know one of the side effects of using viagra can be weight loss....... so we should be prescribing viagra as a diet pill?

as has been said many times about many laws and practices...... if you dont like it change it........ in this case...... instead of being liars and pretending to prescribe contraception for the ulterior motive of treating other symptoms........ then because you are claiming to prescribe contraceptives you demand its a womans right (which I dont know what nutjob ever came up with this notion to begin with) to get free medication

instead of being deceitful heres an idea...... lobby the FDA to approve these drugs to treat the symptoms for which you claim they alleviate (my guess is theres a good reason the greedy Ahole drugmakers havent done this) .... as a side effect.... then after careful research and approvals the healthcare industry may pay for them as medication

 

[Steven58]

Guys,

Let's keep it respectful. There are strong opinions in this section of forum. Just to remind you, strong opinions and strong arguments are allowed and encouraged. Snarky and personal attacks are not. Such comments will be deleted and posts infracted accordingly. Please play nice.

Steven

 

[cmybliss]

Taken directly from the package insert of an Ortho Novum, an oral contraception:

NON-CONTRACEPTIVE HEALTH BENEFITS

The following non-contraceptive health benefits related to the use of combined oral contraceptives are supported by epidemiological studies which largely utilized oral contraceptive formulations containing estrogen doses exceeding 0.035 mg of ethinyl estradiol or 0.05 mg mestranol.

Effects on menses:

increased menstrual cycle regularity decreased blood loss and decreased incidence of iron deficiency anemia decreased incidence of dysmenorrhea Effects related to inhibition of ovulation:

decreased incidence of functional ovarian cysts decreased incidence of ectopic pregnancies Other effects:

decreased incidence of fibroadenomas and fibrocystic disease of the breast decreased incidence of acute pelvic inflammatory disease decreased incidence of endometrial cancer decreased incidence of ovarian cancer


These are all legitimate reasons to prescribe "the pill".

While I don't agree with copestag on anything else, I do agree with his statement that the labeled usage of oral contraceptives should be changed to include these usages. That is, if it hasn't been done already. (I don't keep up with drug labeling. Next time I see my O.B. I'll ask him)

As a woman who has used the pill for some of these non-contraceptive benefits, I'll admit I'm a bit offended by men who are against b.c. being paid for by employers. These ailments are real and debilitating. They cause women to loose valuable time at work and with their families. I've yet to hear of a man being unable to make it to work because he couldn't get it up. (No p*rn jokes please!) I don't b*tch and moan about paying for viagra, as Stinky said, e.d. effects young men as well as old men. I'd appreciate the same consideration.

As others have stated, if religions are opposed to b.c. because conception is God's dominion, they should also be opposed to viagra, because it is God's will that Mr. Jones's winky no longer functions.

 

[mpw]

...As others have stated, if religions are opposed to b.c. because conception is God's dominion, they should also be opposed to viagra, because it is God's will that Mr. Jones's winky no longer functions.

Any religious argument in relation to what medicines can be prescribed is pointless.

While I'll happily accept a persons argument to not allow certain drugs and procedures based on social or economic reasoning, anyone bringing up religion is showing no reasoning at all, and therefore their argument is void.(Obviously if they choose not to have a procedure or medicine for themselves based on their religious belief that's fine, I'm talking imposing such beliefs on others)

 

[cmybliss]

Any religious argument in relation to what medicines can be prescribed is pointless.

While I'll happily accept a persons argument to not allow certain drugs and procedures based on social or economic reasoning, anyone bringing up religion is showing no reasoning at all, and therefore their argument is void.(Obviously if they choose not to have a procedure or medicine for themselves based on their religious belief that's fine, I'm talking imposing such beliefs on others)

Exactly. Well stated.

 

[ylexot]

Any religious argument in relation to what medicines can be prescribed is pointless.

While I'll happily accept a persons argument to not allow certain drugs and procedures based on social or economic reasoning, anyone bringing up religion is showing no reasoning at all, and therefore their argument is void.(Obviously if they choose not to have a procedure or medicine for themselves based on their religious belief that's fine, I'm talking imposing such beliefs on others)

I think you're missing the point. The Catholic church isn't trying to impose restrictions on people. They just don't want to provide those services to people. If you work for them and want an abortion or contraceptives, you are still free to go get them. The church just doesn't want to pay for it because it is against their religion.

 

[mpw]

...The church just doesn't want to pay for it because it is against their religion.

Would you also agree that if it were against an employer's religion to maintain the ladies toilets in a hygienic state, while providing clean hygienic. faeces-free cotton hand towels etc. in the gents, that this would be okay too?

 

[ylexot]

Would you also agree that if it were against an employer's religion to maintain the ladies toilets in a hygienic state, while providing clean hygienic. faeces-free cotton hand towels etc. in the gents, that this would be okay too?

Yes. Don't like it, don't work for them.

 

[mpw]

Yes. Don't like it, don't work for them.

So if Wal-mart decided that on religious grounds it wouldn't employ homosexuals, or hispanics that would be okay?

Should landlords be able to evict people on religious grounds?

 

[ylexot]

So if Wal-mart decided that on religious grounds it wouldn't employ homosexuals, or hispanics that would be okay?

Sure...it doesn't even have to be for religious reasons. Want to guess how long they would remain in business?

Should landlords be able to evict people on religious grounds?

Evict? No. Refuse to rent to somebody in the first place, sure...and again, it doesn't even have to be for religious reasons.

Non-inclusiveness negatively impacts the profitability of a business. Do I care if someone wants to shoot themselves in the foot? No.

 

[mpw]

So what if a tenant finds (the wrong) God while living in my property, I'm stuck with him against my religious beliefs?!
What if a business makes the decision not to serve blacks based on race rather than religion is that still okay? and if so why?

 

[ylexot]

So what if a tenant finds (the wrong) God while living in my property, I'm stuck with him against my religious beliefs?!

You (presumably) signed a contract with them. You have to honor that contract.

What if a business makes the decision not to serve blacks based on race rather than religion is that still okay? and if so why?

Yes, because businesses should be allowed to deny service for whatever lame-brained reason the owner wants. They're only hurting themselves by denying paying customers. Thus, their business will fail and you won't have to deal with them any more. That's how the "real" free market works. I say "real" because we don't have a real free market in the US.

 

[mpw]

Well I gotta say that you are at least making a credible argument, not that I can agree.

While the attitude that you should be allowed to do anything (except breach contract of course!), and that people must take 100% responsibility for themselves sounds fair; I just can't believe it would ever work in practice. Thankfully.

I only have to think of how many of my friends and family would have suffered and died had they had to live in your market-lead utopia; and equally I sickens me to think of the type of selfish, uncaring, manipulative, bigoted, hateful that would prosper on such suffering.

 

[IOWA]

Well I gotta say that you are at least making a credible argument, not that I can agree.

While the attitude that you should be allowed to do anything (except breach contract of course!), and that people must take 100% responsibility for themselves sounds fair; I just can't believe it would ever work in practice. Thankfully.

I only have to think of how many of my friends and family would have suffered and died had they had to live in your market-lead utopia; and equally I sickens me to think of the type of selfish, uncaring, manipulative, bigoted, hateful that would prosper on such suffering.

I am a firm believer in 100% personal responsibility. Don't like something? Change it. Nobody said changing would be easy, but it's never impossible unless you don't try.

Also, just a suggestion, but please review the forum policy on naming calling and such, it's in my sig.

 

[mpw]

I am a firm believer in 100% personal responsibility. Don't like something? Change it. Nobody said changing would be easy, but it's never impossible unless you don't try...

It's easy to say, but if the world ran with a dog eat dog attitude, and I can't delude myself that isn't what would happen any more than a full communism could never work, it's the people who are least able that would be left with nothing.
Don't like being disabled? Change it... and no, that's not easy is it; never impossible?
Living within a plural society peacefully and caring for those that you may not totally agree with, or even like, IS had, but I don't think I'd change it for what some people, often those able-bodied, wealthy and educated, see as 'fair' because they 'earned' what they have

...Also, just a suggestion, but please review the forum policy on naming calling and such, it's in my sig.

Not sure why you feel the need to bring it up, as I see nowhere that I'm contravening the rules, but feel free to point it out.