I guess you only get to "choose" when you agree with this administration

[TheManWithAUsername]

takoma wrote:Okay. No parody for a moment. When you say "You're kidding, right?", you don't really think the other guy is kidding. Same for "That has to be a parody, right?"

So did you really think I thought it was a parody, or were you just suggesting I drop the sarcasm?

Heh - I actually did think you actually thought it might be parody. Far be it from me to ask you to drop any sarcasm.

Highly relevant:
http://books.google.com/books?id=A26CQiLS4DQC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=tom+the+dancing+bug+sarcasm&source=bl&ots=qYIu1ItGCI&sig=txmJM_rlDkN2_uF7HiyYK-U6guk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gZUuT4KXNOTg0QHd56W0Bw&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

takoma wrote:Know what I really think? You're picking on me and Jeff because you resent that we're men with user names.

There can be only one!

...though he was picking on me, dammit.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:An aspect of the Viagra issue that I have not seen in this discussion is that many meds have a side effect of interfering with erections, so Viagra is often prescribed along with them. That seems to me to be a clearer medical situation.

Also, the discussion has assumed that V was for old men to continue getting a bit of joy out of life, but overlooked the fact that the principal beneficiary might be the lady of the house.

I see no need for pay for a man's sex life or the beneficiary(ies) of a man's sex life, whether that be his spouse or the ladies around town. He can get it on as much as he wants, at his expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In response to 8:32, the belief that life starts at conception and that birth control is immoral is a fundamental and basic belief in the Catholic Church. I don't agree that birth control is immoral. I am pro choice. But the US government has no business forcing the Church to go against it's conscience. Religious freedom and separation of church and state are basic tenets of American society. These two things PROTECT everyone's freedom of conscience. To me, my religious freedom is more important than my ability to get birth control from my Catholic employer. It's a slippery slope. We're losing the forest for the trees. Birth control is just one issue. It's an issue you happen to agree with- you happen to agree that Catholic institutions should provide birth control, even those that the Church considers akin to abortion and therefore goes against the church's basic and most central beliefs. What happens when the government inserts itself into religion in a way that you don't agree with? In a way that threatens you or your beliefs? Similarly the government should not force a Muslim institution, or example, to allow alcohol to be purchased on it's premises. I disagree with France's banning of the burqa. As a matter of principle the government should stay out of religion. Yes, religious institutions discriminate based on sex. Yet another thing I disagree with. But do you seriously think it's the government's role to force the Catholic church to hire women priests? You would not see that as a total overreach of government power? Because once you give the government that power you have to be willing to accept it's intrusion into religion or it's forcing of religious mandates in a way you disagree with as well as agree with.

No one is arguing that the Catholic Church must provide this for its church related activities. What the policy is talking about is Catholic hospitals, which receive a bunch of Federal and state tax benefits, Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements, and direct grants. In exchange for those benefits, society has every right to place conditions on them. The policy applies only to these institutions. I happen to disagree with the policy because I do not think any insurance policy should be required to pay for birth control, Viagra, etc. Those are not health related.

[Anonymous]

Sexual health is health. It's part of someone's overall well-being, both physically and mentally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sexual health is health. It's part of someone's overall well-being, both physically and mentally.

Sure as long as you realize that me being able to have sex and not get pregnant is part of my overall health, both physically and mentally! Pay for Viagra and pay for birth control. That's all I'm asking!

What's ironic to me is that I understand there are large percentages of Catholics who use birth control. So if their own adherents are even using birth control despite Church prohibition, the Catholic hierarchy has a lot of nerve insisting that they shouldn't have to provide birth control insurance coverage to non-Catholics!

[Anonymous]

It's even more than I thought:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/14/98-percent-catholic-women-birth-control_n_849060.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sexual health is health. It's part of someone's overall well-being, both physically and mentally.

Sorry, whether you are able to have sex as often as you want (without getting pregnant) is NOT health. Sorry. It may be fun, meaningful (or not), relaxing (afterwards), good exercise, etc. But it is not health. The idea that I should be pay for some 20s year old who wants to enjoy herself in her new found freedom or some old man who can't get over the fact that he is getting older is simply BS!!!

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sexual health is health. It's part of someone's overall well-being, both physically and mentally.

Sorry, whether you are able to have sex as often as you want (without getting pregnant) is NOT health. Sorry. It may be fun, meaningful (or not), relaxing (afterwards), good exercise, etc. But it is not health. The idea that I should be pay for some 20s year old who wants to enjoy herself in her new found freedom or some old man who can't get over the fact that he is getting older is simply BS!!!

Citing the most extreme cases is a poor way to judge policy. And, if I may offer some feedback on your rhetoric, stating your opinion as though it were indisputable fact, while others' opinions are BS, is not a great way to convince people.

[Anonymous]

Just mentioning here without getting into the argument about the healthcare law. The federal BC/BS does not cover Viagra. My husband was on an antidepressant which interfered with sensitivity and orgasm. He could still get an erection but orgasm was an issue. The doctor prescribed Viagra to increase sensitivity because it increases bloodflow. We were TTC so his orgasm was the important one.

All the fed healthplans, as far as I know, cover birth control pills. When I used them, they were always covered.

[Anonymous]

Many insurers don't cover infertility. So this whole "cover viagra because it enables conception" argument rings false to me.

What I see is a religious willingness to encourage and support male sexuality but a reluctantance to embrace women's sexual freedom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sexual health is health. It's part of someone's overall well-being, both physically and mentally.

Sorry, whether you are able to have sex as often as you want (without getting pregnant) is NOT health. Sorry. It may be fun, meaningful (or not), relaxing (afterwards), good exercise, etc. But it is not health. The idea that I should be pay for some 20s year old who wants to enjoy herself in her new found freedom or some old man who can't get over the fact that he is getting older is simply BS!!!

Yes it is. People who have sex regularly are in better health, live longer, get fewer cancers, have healthier hearts, sleep better, and are not depressed as often. We are meant to have sex.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:Yes it is. People who have sex regularly are in better health, live longer, get fewer cancers, have healthier hearts, sleep better, and are not depressed as often. We are meant to have sex.

Compensation for serving the needs of the species.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many insurers don't cover infertility. So this whole "cover viagra because it enables conception" argument rings false to me.

What I see is a religious willingness to encourage and support male sexuality but a reluctantance to embrace women's sexual freedom.

I see no reason why we should pay for either. One of the PPs claims a range of health benefits for sex. Well, can I get my health care plan to pay for my blueberries or oatmeal that I understand are great for my health. What about my gym membership? Private trainer? Why not? The health benefits are pretty much the same. I am confident that, in evolutionary terms, there is a difference between sex to continue mankind and sex because I want it. What we have here is that everything, even lifestyle choices, become health related. An older guy that can't get it up must have a health problem. Health care costs will never get under control with some of the arguments stated above. I am far more interested in spending limited resources on a breast cancer victim to ensure her survival than to pay her birth control pills so she can have fun on Saturday night. Sorry, paying for someone's sex life is not my problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many insurers don't cover infertility. So this whole "cover viagra because it enables conception" argument rings false to me.

What I see is a religious willingness to encourage and support male sexuality but a reluctantance to embrace women's sexual freedom.

I see no reason why we should pay for either. One of the PPs claims a range of health benefits for sex. Well, can I get my health care plan to pay for my blueberries or oatmeal that I understand are great for my health. What about my gym membership? Private trainer? Why not? The health benefits are pretty much the same. I am confident that, in evolutionary terms, there is a difference between sex to continue mankind and sex because I want it. What we have here is that everything, even lifestyle choices, become health related. An older guy that can't get it up must have a health problem. Health care costs will never get under control with some of the arguments stated above. I am far more interested in spending limited resources on a breast cancer victim to ensure her survival than to pay her birth control pills so she can have fun on Saturday night. Sorry, paying for someone's sex life is not my problem.

That's fine. As long as viagra is treated the same as other sexual health related treatments. Which it never will be because the drug makers are too powerful a lobby.

[Anonymous]

What I want to know is, how can *I* get in on one of these new Obama Catholic health care plans that provides free, unlimited, late term abortions on demand? And the birth control pills they now have to hand out during mass, along with the collection plate. THAT is quality health care.

I hear they are working on an addendum to force parishoners, male AND female, to wash the pills down with holy water.