TMWAUN, It is the biological imperative for our RACE to procreate. Nature does not intend every 70 year old man to procreate. That's why he can't get it up.

Anonymous wrote:Whether sex is critical to evolution is not relevant for this discussion.

I think it says something about its value to a fulfilling life, but for the most part I agree. That’s why I mentioned it only parenthetically.

Anonymous wrote:The fact that Big Pharma lobbied enough to get dysfunction declared a disease does NOT mean that I have to pay for your fun!

Nothing to do with it. It’s a disease regardless of what any lobby says. Any doctor will tell you that.

You’re arguing against coverage b/c you don’t think it’s an important enough disease. You say you shouldn’t have to pay for this kind of fun. Insurance pays for treatment of all kinds of diseases that affect only the ability to play sports and do the like – why do we have to pay for that fun? I’d rather leave it to the doctors to decide what’s a treatable disease than start carving out exceptions from a simple and clear definition.

Anonymous wrote:Just as I believe religion should stay out of government (hence the pro choice stance) I believe government should stay out of religion. This is a big government move and it tramples on religious freedom just as government intrusion into women's lives tramples on privacy. I'm actually really angry about it. The Church believes birth control and plan B (which it equates with abortion) is wrong and they should not be forced to provide it.

Some of us have been asking basically the same question all thread: Are you saying that the government has to excuse every religion from every law, in every context, that conflicts with doctrine?

That means that the government would have to allow certain people to smoke pot or peyote (actual cases). It would mean that the government would have to allow sexist or racist religions (could you imagine such a thing?!) to discriminate in employment, etc. If you don’t think those activities should be indulged, please tell us where the lines are.

I think several people have now made basically your statement, and none has answered our question.

And as my dear friend posted out last night, health insurance is part of your compensation.

Your employer has no more right to tell you how you can use your insurance than they can tell you how to use your paycheck, even if your employer is the almighty, all knowing Catholic Church.

Getting back to Dionne's article, he advocates an approach used in Hawaii. It allows employers to refuse to cover BC, but requires them to provide prospective employees written notification of that fact and to instruct them how to get alternate insurance that covers it.

Seems to me that still makes them complicit in making BC available but gives them an excuse to make it more difficult to obtain and save some money at the employees' expense.

I'm a pro choice liberal Catholic (yes we exist and yes I believe one can be pro choice and Catholic) but I strongly disagree with the Obama Administration's move. Just as I believe religion should stay out of government (hence the pro choice stance) I believe government should stay out of religion. This is a big government move and it tramples on religious freedom just as government intrusion into women's lives tramples on privacy. I'm actually really angry about it. The Church believes birth control and plan B (which it equates with abortion) is wrong and they should not be forced to provide it.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bull shit. Maintaining a hard on is not a primary function. Breathing, eating, sleeping, shitting and peeing, heart beating, brain working -primary functions. Getting laid, nice to have.

That shows an astounding ignorance - or denial - of all evolutionary biology. Procreation is THE primary function. Everything you listed exists only to maintain the organism long enough to enable it to procreate.

TheManWithAUsername, You're being sarcastic here, right?
Different poster but just wanted to add to the point at the top that now that I'm in my 50s I don't see intercourse as this absolutely fundamental part of existence. One can have a lot of fun without it, using a little creativity and manual dexterity among other things and hey - if some old guy no longer even feels like having any kind of sex at all, what's so friggin' tragic about that? He can buy his own damn Viagra!

I didn't say that the loss was tragic or that sex was necessary or even important to a fulfilling life. I simply stated that the inability to have sex is a disease, i.e., "a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant," a dysfunction.

Parenthetically, I noted that sex is our primary function. I meant that literally, as a matter of evolution. As a matter of personal choice one might not choose to follow that, but from the perspective of biology the inability to procreate is a major disease.

The inability to have sex without getting pregnant, troublesome as it may be, is the opposite of a disease.

Whether sex is critical to evolution is not relevant for this discussion. The fact that Big Pharma lobbied enough to get dysfunction declared a disease does NOT mean that I have to pay for your fun!

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bull shit. Maintaining a hard on is not a primary function. Breathing, eating, sleeping, shitting and peeing, heart beating, brain working -primary functions. Getting laid, nice to have.

That shows an astounding ignorance - or denial - of all evolutionary biology. Procreation is THE primary function. Everything you listed exists only to maintain the organism long enough to enable it to procreate.

TheManWithAUsername, You're being sarcastic here, right?
Different poster but just wanted to add to the point at the top that now that I'm in my 50s I don't see intercourse as this absolutely fundamental part of existence. One can have a lot of fun without it, using a little creativity and manual dexterity among other things and hey - if some old guy no longer even feels like having any kind of sex at all, what's so friggin' tragic about that? He can buy his own damn Viagra!

I didn't say that the loss was tragic or that sex was necessary or even important to a fulfilling life. I simply stated that the inability to have sex is a disease, i.e., "a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant," a dysfunction.

Parenthetically, I noted that sex is our primary function. I meant that literally, as a matter of evolution. As a matter of personal choice one might not choose to follow that, but from the perspective of biology the inability to procreate is a major disease.

The inability to have sex without getting pregnant, troublesome as it may be, is the opposite of a disease.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bull shit. Maintaining a hard on is not a primary function. Breathing, eating, sleeping, shitting and peeing, heart beating, brain working -primary functions. Getting laid, nice to have.

That shows an astounding ignorance - or denial - of all evolutionary biology. Procreation is THE primary function. Everything you listed exists only to maintain the organism long enough to enable it to procreate.

TheManWithAUsername, You're being sarcastic here, right?
Different poster but just wanted to add to the point at the top that now that I'm in my 50s I don't see intercourse as this absolutely fundamental part of existence. One can have a lot of fun without it, using a little creativity and manual dexterity among other things and hey - if some old guy no longer even feels like having any kind of sex at all, what's so friggin' tragic about that? He can buy his own damn Viagra!

Anonymous wrote:Bull shit. Maintaining a hard on is not a primary function. Breathing, eating, sleeping, shitting and peeing, heart beating, brain working -primary functions. Getting laid, nice to have.

That shows an astounding ignorance - or denial - of all evolutionary biology. Procreation is THE primary function. Everything you listed exists only to maintain the organism long enough to enable it to procreate.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pregnancy is, of course, a health related issue. Ensuring that the mother remains healthy during the pregnancy benefits both the mother and child, health wise. But the mere taking of birth control pills is not. I still fail to see why insurance should cover this. It reflects a life style decision by the women, which is fine, but not at other's expense.

It is ok to cover Viagra for men who want a stiff one, but not ok to cover BP for a woman who does not want an unwanted pregnancy. Viagra has been covered since it's creation, but I have not heard people arguing that it's not health related.

I agree. It is absurd that insurance plans cover Viagra. Viagra and BP are lifestyle drugs. Nothing wrong with that. But I see no reason why I should pay for others to take these drugs. BTW. I am a moderate Democratic, with a 90% plus voting record in favor of Dems, at levels of elections. I also am pro-choice.

There's a better argument for Viagra than for birth control. Impotence is a disease regarding a basic (primary, actually) function. Sure, it's one's "lifestyle choice" to have sex, but the same could be said for walking or for restraining one's bowels until reaching a toilet.

I think birth control is good policy and good economics, but "inability to have sex without getting pregnant" isn't a disease.

Bull shit. Maintaining a hard on is not a primary function. Breathing, eating, sleeping, shitting and peeing, heart beating, brain working -primary functions. Getting laid, nice to have.

Condoms are far cheaper than birth control pills. When used correctly their failure rate approaches 3%, oral contraceptive pills are at about 1%.


I wonder if the argument would change if insurance companies were to decide to only cover the cost of condoms and put onus on consumers of health care coverage to use them responsibly or correctly....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pregnancy is, of course, a health related issue. Ensuring that the mother remains healthy during the pregnancy benefits both the mother and child, health wise. But the mere taking of birth control pills is not. I still fail to see why insurance should cover this. It reflects a life style decision by the women, which is fine, but not at other's expense.

It is ok to cover Viagra for men who want a stiff one, but not ok to cover BP for a woman who does not want an unwanted pregnancy. Viagra has been covered since it's creation, but I have not heard people arguing that it's not health related.

I agree. It is absurd that insurance plans cover Viagra. Viagra and BP are lifestyle drugs. Nothing wrong with that. But I see no reason why I should pay for others to take these drugs. BTW. I am a moderate Democratic, with a 90% plus voting record in favor of Dems, at levels of elections. I also am pro-choice.

There's a better argument for Viagra than for birth control. Impotence is a disease regarding a basic (primary, actually) function. Sure, it's one's "lifestyle choice" to have sex, but the same could be said for walking or for restraining one's bowels until reaching a toilet.

I think birth control is good policy and good economics, but "inability to have sex without getting pregnant" isn't a disease.

Anonymous wrote:Pregnancy is, of course, a health related issue. Ensuring that the mother remains healthy during the pregnancy benefits both the mother and child, health wise. But the mere taking of birth control pills is not. I still fail to see why insurance should cover this. It reflects a life style decision by the women, which is fine, but not at other's expense.

Why would you want to pay the thousands and thousands of dollars for a pregancy and delivery if you could have just provided some damn BC pills on the cheap? Your argument above focuses on costs. A simple cost analysis indicates that a single pregnancy is much more costly than BC. How do you rationalize that?

Prior to Obamacare, did Catholic institutions typically provide Viagra if warranted?