November 14, 2008
-
Insurance: Covering Viagra but not Birth Control
The thinking of some insurance companies is that Viagra treats a medical condition while birth control is a choice. Here is the link: Link
Do you think it is appropriate for insurance companies to cover Viagra but not birth control?
Comments (145)
I think that’s completely bogus. Of course it’s all true…but birth control is a preventative measure and should be treated as such. Cuz the insurance companies are going to have to pay out more when there’s more pregnancies and births going on….
WOW…FIRST?!?!
it’s stupid
@PoetMcChick - calm down it happens to the best of us
well i understand why viagra is covered but some women need bcp to regulate their periods and such..
Technically, they use birth control to treat some medical issues, too…
Of course Dan. Condoms are Satan’s little gloves, and birth control in general might encourage dangerous behaviour like gender equality for example. Thank goodness for the conservative lobby!
The
O’Reilly Factor? seriously? Viagra is
used to help a medical condition — that’s why it’s covered. Birth control is
not a medical condition, it is a choice. Do I have to buy you dinner before you use the
birth control? You should suggest/submit this to momaroo or even dollarish and see what kindof answers you get…..
@LihKinLi - that and clear up acne and help treat PMDD (depending on the brand you get).
FIRST?!
And no, I don’t.
DARN TOO LATE DX
@loveandpolitics - I missed you Francois
That makes no sense.
As pregnancy is not a heath problem and impotence is, I see their reasoning.
Not sure it makes economic sense. and anyone getting pregnant because their insurance did not cover the very low coast of birth control. Well I am not certain I want anyone that stupid reproducing The heath insurance companies would be doing a pubic service in keeping the population of helpless stupid people down by covering this.
As if having sex isn’t a choice.
Well… birth control can be used for medical issues… It’s called getting pregnant.
30 years ago when I worked at a pharmacy Medicaid paid 100% for birth control pills – no copay and it didn’t count against the three prescriptions per month that were allowed. It saved the state tons of money instead of paying for pregnancy, childbirth, and new babies on Medicaid.
On the barebones surface I’d say that this makes sense. But any attempt to actually consider it and even scratch the surface requires one to call it a completely bogus decision in my opinion.
No. It also makes no sense, looking at their own interests. Providing birth control is much, much cheaper than covering the costs of prenatal care, birth, and 18 years of a child’s healthcare.
Well damnit when I was on Viagra for medical reasons….and being a girl and all they sure as hell were not so easy with giving me my Viagra pills.
And yes people, I am being honest here…I did take Viagra!
birth control isn’t always a choice – I was required to be on it by my Dr. because of another medication I was on that had birth defects associated with it. No chance of my getting pregnant, but I still had to be on the pill. It was covered by insurance though.
BTW many women use hormonal birth control to treat things like extreme PMS, endometriosis, preventing ovarian cysts, etc. Thus it can be used for treating a legitimate medical condition.
Sex may technically be a “choice” but how many of you are willing to forego that “choice” for the rest of your life, or for the times you don’t want to have a child? Just because someone is married (when sex is apparently finally “ok”) does not mean they should be having kids. Most couples today who wish to have children only want 1-3 kids. Should they only be allowed to have sex that number of times? Cmon.
No. There are some medical conditions that are treated with those medicines.
You can get condoms for free at planned parenthood…not that i have a reason to know.
So yeah, i don’t see a problem with this.
Vivaaaaa Viagraaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Oh, and considering that health insurance companies consider pregnancy to be a pre-existing condition it certainly seems like they treat it like a medical condition.
(Ok, I will stop commenting now)
lame, that’s quite biased
I mean who DOESN’T want birth control?!
Though I admit to a certain degree of uncomfort in so doing, I agree with the position of the insurers. ED is a valid medical problem. Viagra, properly proscribed, treats a disfunction. Other than implantation or, I suppose, a stick of equal length and superglue, erectile disfunction cannot be effectively treated currently in any other way. Birth control, on the other hand, can be accomplished in myriad ways … one of which costs absolutely nothing. I think the insurance companies might just be willing to include that one in their coverage option list.
Now that’s just wrong..
now they have to shell out more for the pregnancies. silly fools.
Insurance companies should pay for both. I’m such a socialist these days.
Women don’t need to buy birth control because you can always choose to just pull out.
Now if birth control was a still a single patented drug under a big pharma company with lobbying power, then maybe insurance companies would cover.
Yes, that is inappropriate.
Birth control pills can also be used for medical purposes. I know plenty of women who have been prescribed them to regulate their menstrual cycle.
FIRST!!!
lulz.
actually…it’s the other way around; in my experience working in retail pharmacy, most insurances cover birth controls but not erectile dysfunctional drugs like viagra, cialis, and levitra…
I’ve heard of this and I think it’s absolutely ridiculous.
I think as a private company, they should be allowed to cover whatever they want.
No.
@mightymarce - Oh yeah. Pregnancy. Pre-existing. Totally. =]]]
@queen_of_hearts102304 - What condition did you need it for? If you don’t mind me asking, that is. I’ve never heard of that before.
They both have to do with sex.
How can one be more important than the other?
its just because the insurance companies are run by old dirty bastards who are trying to knock up hot girls.
Just kidding.
Xo
The logic is good. Ultimately it’s just an excuse not to pay for something. But we know this when we sign on the dotted line.
@Eternalimplosion - Condoms are okay, but there is a much higher user failure rate with condoms as they’re are with Birth control pills. There’s nothing wrong with planning your future.
Also, Some people have to take BC for an array of medical conditions like PCOS, Severe PMS, Acne, menstrual depression, and much more. How is that “okay?”
@ClockworkBunny - Umm, you do realize that the pullout method has a failure rate of 27%, compared to the <1% failure rate of the pill?
I thought some medical insurances covered birth control?
okay…i’m still too young for the pills..i wanna know, looking at profile….quote of picasso, i’m a painter..and i know he was weird,,but what the heck does that quote mean?????
no way.
well let’s hope they don’t cover abortions….that would be like the nutsos out there that fight for animal rights but are pro-’choice’…
I find it odd that the people paying for pregnancy costs have made this logically flawed decision to fund the propagation of unchecked man-sperm.
@queen_of_hearts102304 - I gotta tell ya, no harm intended of course, if a doctor put you, a female on Viagra, that is worrisome. I have worked for doctors for 17 years and have never heard or seen of a condition wherein Viagra was once given to a female. Don’t want to get into your personal information, but have you checked that out online or got a second opinion on what he gave it to you for, etc., cause that is just plain scary, sweetie,
Whatever the case, I hope you are doing well now, 
Cheryl
K, Dan, I have a theory here, lol. My guess is, no harm intended, since it covers Viagra and not birth control pills, it’s a man that made that call, lol, a man who has never undergone the devastating trauma of delivering a child. Seems to me, however, that since we know insurance companies want to keep their pay-outs down that they would cover BCPs and not Viagra, the other way around, because the cost associated with maternity care/delivery, et cetera, is out of this world. If I remember correctly, just the delivery of my little girl alone cost over $9,000.00. They are only hanging themselves in my opinion,
But my original guess goes back to it being a man who called that shot, rofl, 
Gosh, your posts always make me realize how much I need to work on being judgmental,
Have a great weekend!
Cheryl
Men’s sexual satisfaction is critical to the world operating properly……..so yes, it is quite appropriate
Well, if we are looking at it that way, birth control IS used to help control some medical problems. Women with “really heavy”, out of control periods will sometimes have to go on the pill in order to slow down and regulate the period.
THERE, we just used birth control to help with a medical condition. Just like men with penis’s that don’t work properly use Viagra to fix their problem.
Fight that, if you will.
Birth controll prevents the birthing of new clients.
new people to grow up and pour money into the insurance company.
we are a consumer nation. Babies are consumers too.
i see the logic.
btw: wtf is that white tube thing? I’ve never even seen like three items shown in the birth controll picture. weird. I never needed it so i guess i’m just ill informed about it.
no, but my insurance covers it. =]
No, because having sex is a choice too.
Plus, if your pee pee aint working, maybe it’s for the best. We don’t want faulty sperm making their ways to rotten eggs now do we?
I know plenty of women who take birth control for medical purposes. At least I know I’ll be good when I get older.
that’s just dumb.
Isn’t using viagra a choice too…
i know of someone who took birth control not to keep from getting pregnant but to help other issues. i think it should be that if there is proof it is being used not for birth control but for something else then they should cover it.
No.
No.
Birth control is used for medical conditions as well, not just to keep you from getting pregnant. In 9th grade, I knew a really, really good girl(/prude, whatever you call it) who didn’t do anything and she had been put on it for medical reasons. That happened to me my junior year of high school. (about three years ago…and might I add, I’m still a virgin and plan on being for a while)
I also read an article recently where a lady had been put on birth control because of ovarian cysts. (which are REALLY fucking painful and dangerous if they burst, btw)
That’s bullshit.
i think it is so stupid that insurance doesn’t cover birth control. seriously, so many ppl take it & it is definitely something that is not only a choice but so necessary anymore.
I’m only going to say this once, in giant, obnoxious capital letters.
BEING 90 AND NOT GETTING A HARD ON IS NOT A MEDICAL CONDITION.
IT IS NATURE.
GOD WANTS YOU TO NOT FUCK ANYMORE.
I will gladly pay much higher taxes if it means anyone can get an abortion for free any time.
Definition of double standard. Tha majority of people I know on birth control are on it for medical reasons; how about Viagra?
Birth control can be used to treat medical conditions. Irregularities in the menstrual cycle is one of the leading reasons for birth control prescriptions.
Yes.
Its a bullshit decision made by bullshit men in suits that don’t care a fuck about people and would rather see their pockets lined with cash than anything else.
It’s sexist and discriminatory.
Birth control is often used to treat things like PCOS, acne, hirutism (both symptoms of PCOS, I should add), irregular periods, cramps…some girls, if not for birth control would be on the floor, curled up in the fetal position during their periods because of cramps. That’s fucking retarded. It’s a choice to have sex. If a guy doesn’t have sex, he doesn’t need the little man’s pickmeup.
That sucks. Birth control is a necessity for women with irregular or excessively painful periods. I think this is sexist.
@mightymarce - I have to agree with you completely. Many women, including myself, take the pill for medical reasons, like the ones you listed above. Before I started the pill, I got cramps so badly I couldn’t function- that’s a medical condition and insurance should cover it.
Insurance companies should cover at least part of both Viagra products and hormonal birth control. Both legitimately treat medical conditions and for some there’s no choice other than to take one of them
@Eternalimplosion - The problem is that the thinking behind their decision is flawed. If they were to simply cover the birth control pills for a woman from puberty to menopause, they would still spend less money than if they had to cover every one of the pregnancies that would happen because she was not on some form of birth control, not to mention there are now children that need to be covered. And anyone who has had to rush their child to the ER because of broken bones or taken them countless times for upper respiratory infections can tell you it ain’t cheap. Plus them saying it isn’t medically necessary means they haven’t done their homework because hormone based birth control pills have been used to treat a wide range of medical issues just google it, there are several. Not to mention it is a gross violation of gender equality to say that it is a medical necessity for a guy to get a hard on, but not a medical necessity to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
*steps off the soapbox*
@JUSTAVAPORHERE - My second son was by far the most expensive of the two. We had to take a ride in an ambulance due to circumstances beyond our control and that alone was $9,000. Tack onto that the normal costs for delivering a child and that alone would cover the cost of birth control for quite a while… they are seriously just being silly.
This is very interesting, Dan.
If pregnancy is seen as a medical condition, then the insurance companies should cover the cost of birth control. It only makes sense. If they do not see pregnancy as a medical condition, then they should cover birth control when it is used as a treatment for conditions other than unwanted pregnancy.
um no viagra has one use and one use only. birth control can be used to alleviate the symptoms of many problems such as extremely painful menstrual cramps, bad acne, and hormonal fluxuations that result in sever mood swings and the inability to function normally. besides who are these half assed companies? i have had three different carriers and they have all covered bc with no questions asked! maybe i just pay more or something i don’t know.
Depending on your insurance, you can get coverage for birth control – or at least partial coverage. My insurance provides perscription coverage with a co-pay.
birth control is not always for preventing pregnancy. some women use birth control to treat other medical issues.
men must be in charge of this decision. and i hope their penises fall off.
@JUSTAVAPORHERE - LMAO! Well see Viagra has the ingredient that causes your blood to flow faster. I went into heart failure in 04. I was one of the trial women who did this trial. It worked for me. It helped the blood flow faster and it made me feel somewhat better, therefore that was the reason I was on it.
I took it for 6 months…it has no real affect on me at all. It never made me horny or anything. LOL!!
Well, their statement makes sense.
But what are the two white thingies in the middle?
I don’t feel like reading the article, but the fact is that sometimes birth control is NOT a choice. There are plenty of girls out there with PMDD and other hormonal problems which are fixed by it. On the other hand, it IS a choice for a large percentage of birth control users; BUT IT IS A VERY ADVISABLE CHOICE TOO! Geez, why won’t this country hand it out for free, like China? Pisses me off.
Besides, if you’re a middle aged to old man who’s getting laid, most likely you have the money to buy viagra yourself, anyway.
@insaneblogger - Both Viagra and combined oral contraceptives are used for legitimate non-contraceptive purposes. Viagra treats (obv) erectile dysfunction and pulmonary hyper tension.
The pill, on the other hand, is used to treat polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis,
adenomyosis, irregular periods, anemia due to menstruation, acne, and even REDUCES the risk of developing both ovarian and edometrial cancer. One could also argue that the pill prevents the medical condition known as “pregnancy.”
There are clear medical benefits (that are NOT contraceptive) for either drug. Using your own argument, the pill should be covered by health insurance.
I did an entire post on this when it came out the first time. O’Reilly is full of it.
Both viagra and birth control should be covered by insurance companies. And in all honestly if one of them is going to be covered over the other, it should be birth control.
The problem is the religious right stuck their noses all up in everyone else’s business and businesses. Now birth control is the debil and we shouldn’t take it because we’re all promiscuous WHORES! And we should all have all the children that God intended by NEVER denying our husbands the right to our bodies and taking all the children “God” gave us.
Er… Thanks but no!
@Alle_in_Ashe -
It’s a tube of spermacide.
@lotta_valdez -
LOL I agree!
@insaneblogger - sometimes The Pill is prescribed for medical conditions for women. I know, because I have it prescribed for me, and it still isn’t covered, even though the doctor specified what it was for. I don’t need it for BC because my husband had a vasectomy. So not to have it covered for a medical condition is baloney. What is Viagra prescribed for except for men to be able to have sex? While not being able to get it up without help is usually the result of a medical condition, it isn’t a detriment to a man’s health not to have sex.
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
But they are private companies and can do as they please without worry of suit for civil rights infringement or discrimination (unless it’s in employment).
@WakeUpLaughing - that’s not entirely true; it can harm the prostate. But still there should be equal treatment. I take the pill for more reasons than just birth control, too!
The company I used to work for covered abortion, but not birth control. Bunch of ridiculous.
that is quite ignorant. no actually it’s completely B.S.
that and the fact that most insurance companies will pay or cover a portion of the bill to have an abortion/care/meds afterwards…but that’s another post for another time, now isn’t it?
but they won’t cover most birth controls…
*shakes head* whatever…
It’s sexist and unfair…just like everything else in life.
birth control is a health issue as well; even more so than ED… i don’t understand that logic at all. Unless the ones making the decision to include viagra are middle aged men (very likely)
My insurance covered BC… I could even send away and buy four at a time for cheaper… In case your insurance does not cover; anyone need 2 packs of mircette (Kariva generic)? I no longer need them…
But if your insurance wont cover BC but will viagra, that figures…most men have always thought his hard-on is more important than making sure he doesn’t get a woman pregnant. Obviously insurance companies are being ran by men!
@RaVnR - thanks, I looked it up and studies are showing that class of drugs do help problems with the prostrate, even though they’re only approved for ED. Didn’t know that. The pill still should be covered if ED drugs are. It’s a double standard if you ask me, especially since so many women need it for other reasons than birth control.
Private companies should have the right to do as they will.
But for many women, hormonal birth control is NOT optional. One of my friends is sterile, but still takes the hormonal birth control because she actually needs it to regulate her cycles, etc.
Besides, it’s much more expensive to provide prenatal care and then health insurance for a dependent, than it is to provide BC.
@LihKinLi - Insurance usually will cover the pill if it’s for a health reason and the physician documents that. A few crappy insurance companies won’t, but that’s to be expected.
if i were them i would rather pay the minor expense for birthcontrol than be faced with the major expenses or doctor and hospital visits that a pregnancy comes along with, and the added person on the policy.
They both serve the same purpose: to make it more convenient (or possible) to have sex. Birth control is way more important than Viagra! Some women get horrible cramps that birth control helps a LOT with, not to mention there’s less likelihood of an unintended pregnancy… Viagra is mostly just so a man can still have sex at all. It only really serves that purpose as far as I can tell, and it doesn’t strike me as more insurance-worthy than birth control.
They must be Catholic.
Um, no. Birth control should be covered more than Viagra should. If not, these old men on viagra are going to be getting a lot of women pregnant. Lol.
Peace.
I think it’s fucked up that they think like that. Viagra isn’t just used for medical conditions and there are other ways of deal with shit like that then to take a lil pill like Viagra. Out country complains that we have so many people on DSHS or welfare it’s there own fucking fault for not supporting girls and there choice to not have a baby when they don’t have the money to support it. They should ethier cover both or don’t cover ethier one of them. It’s like they are asking for girls to have kids at a young age or unplanned just so they can get get the money for them being on welfare and DSHS and crap. I think it’s getting out of control.
<3 J
I see the reasoning, but here’s the problem:
The medical condition of impotence is a problem only if you want to have sex.
Birth control similarly is only necessary (barring off-label uses like post-menopausal hormone regulation, acne, etc.) if you want to have sex.
So, the question is, do we consider it a right for people to have sex? I think we should. I think sex is too important a part of the human experience to be left out.
But there are two options here:
either 1. Sex is not a right, and there is no reason why insurance needs to cover erectile dysfunction medication, since it only is necessary to allow you to have sex.
or 2. Sex is a right, and insurance ought to cover any FDA-approved medication, therapy, or product which makes sex easier, better, or safer. That would include birth control, erectile dysfunction medication, hormone treatments for reduced or enhanced libido, even sex toys, condoms, and AIDS education.
I like option 2 better, but some may disagree; the point is that covering Viagra but not birth control seems inconsistent, maybe even sexist.
@insaneblogger - Controlling birth is not a medical condition, but extreme cramping, vomiting due to hormonal imbalances, and menstrual headaches all are… and can be alleviated by using birth control. Are you even a woman?
This is stupid. It could be that, birth control keeps them from making money. When women are pregnant, there are prenatal vitamins, doctors visits, hospital stays, etc. that they get to bill for, if they aren’t getting pregnant then they aren’t turning the profit for pregnancy.
First of all, birth control can be used for medicinal purposes other than preventing pregnancies. Viagra helps with erections, which lead to sex or masturbation. Sex isn’t a necessity…sure most people want it, but you don’t need it to survive (idk, maybe there’s a medical fact out there to prove me wrong). Therefore, viagra can be seen as a “choice” as well.
That’s stupid. Some women really need birth control.
I have a thyroid condition that prevents me from receiving much of the right hormones, including estrogen, therefore, I have so many problems during “that time of the month” that I was actually hospitalized for a period of time.
That is not fair that I have to suffer financially and an old man who can’t get it up anymore gets off scott free.
@queen_of_hearts102304 - Please tell us why!
ABSOLUTELY NOT. if anything they shouldn’t cover viagra but cover birth control.
P.S: the first picture up there looks like a wallpaper on my computer
do not agree! true, viagra can be used to treat a “condition” however birth control isn’t just for teens who don’t want to use protection… I had to go on it because I had horribly irregular periods.. that’s messed up insurance doesn’t cover!!
I think they are better off covering birth control than paying for an exspensive abortion or exspensive pregnancy and birth. I’m also up for the cheaper options.
(I’m not for abortion at all, but birth control is much much cheaper.)
@Fool0nThePlanet - this is true. and some people get on it to lessen the pain of cramps and such.
It would make perfect sense if, and only if, the insurance companies would cover birth control if they would be using it for a medical disorder that they could not take something else to take care of… and since there isn’t any situation like that, that I know of, this makes perfect sense to me.
Don’t care b/c i need none of them.
No, insurance companies should cover neither. They are both voluntary drugs.
mine covers neither, and i think they should cover both. see above statements
y’all are so smart
i don’t think they’re really comparable, so saying ‘but you cover viagra!’ isn’t a good reason for them to cover birth control. i think birth control should be covered for women who need their periods regulated, but not necessarily for women who exclusively don’t want to get pregnant. i can’t really think of a good reason why they should…it’s not like it really makes financial sense for the business aspect of health insurance. i mean, think of all the money they make off of pregnant women and eventual children.
besides…it’s free at the health department anyway.
Well, my insurance covers most of my birth control. However, no, I think insurance would be stupid to not cover b.c. If a couple does not have b.c. then the insurance runs the risk of gaining another person on their policy that they have to cover…not to mention high costs of prenatal care.
I have known girls/women who were put on bcp for medical reasons. If that is the case, then it would be covered.
Medicare covers Viagra and Cialis, but they refuse to even grant a pardon (which they’ll do if you can prove need, usually) to cover my mum’s depression medication. They claim it isn’t a necessity, but they also won’t cover therapy. As a result, she’s been unmedicated for over two years as she can’t afford to pay it.
This is just one example of how fucked this system is. But yeah, it’s totally unfair to cover Viagra so old men can impregnate young women, but to not cover the things that will stop the young woman from fucking up her life. Ugh.
if insurance companies will cover viagra then it should cover birth control. why? viagra=more sex. more sex=more pregnancy more pregnancy=more kids more kids=more customers. oh wait they should not cover birth control.
I’ve worked in pharmacy for years, and when the insurance company does not want to cover your medication, you can have it overridden if your doctor calls them and states that the particular drug is “medically necessary.” Most of the time this works, even though it takes quite some time, and is a pain in the ass to the you, the pharmacy and your doctor.
But I think it is a travesty that they cover erectile dysfunction medications (although most insurance companies allow you to fill like 8 pills per 24 days) and not birth control. Birth control has hormones in it that helps women regulate their cycles, along with controlling many other conditions they may have. So isn’t that a medical necessity? Gotta love insurance… like when cold and flu season comes and they only cover a bottle (when your doctor wrote you a prescription for two bottles) of necessary flu medication for your kid because it is too expensive.
No. This is blatantly sexist.
Treating ED costs absolutely nothing, as well. It’s called “not having sex.” Why do men have the right to have sex and women don’t? So men should be able to use Viagra to have sex, but women should not be able to have sex while using birth control to control the very medical condition of pregnancy, as well as to treat other conditions? What a sexist double standard.
If you’re gonna prescribe abstinence for one, it should go for both.
No. Mainly because there are guys who don’t need it that somehow get their hands on crap like Viagra anyway, whereas some women can’t even afford bc. Viagra may treat a condition, but birth control saves lives…literally from both sides.
put me in the camp for neither.
Isn’t Viagra typically taken to treat a medical problem (ie: erectile disfunction)? While birth control only treats, well, sex.
Seems pretty logical for insurance companies to make that decision, to me anyway.
haha yeah right. After the viagra works and the birth control didn’t. then the insurrance makes more money for all the doctor and hospital visits for the unexpected child…… i wish insurance covered BC i sure could use some
That is really stupid. Viagra doesn’t really treat a medical condition, and I base that statement on the fact that it and Levitra are advertised on TV and through spam. ”Ask your doctor if you are healthy enough for sex” What utter nonsense. Your doctor doesn’t know anything unless YOU tell HIM, and then you get the bill! Younger guys abuse Viagra, and it is practically a recreational drug.
On the other hand, birth control pills, even though they are dangerous, actually have a purpose that they might fulfill. Certainly taking them (for pregnancy prevention) should be a matter of choice, just as abortion should be a matter of choice when science fails – and both should be covered by insurance.
I think it’s beyond STUPID….
justsayin…..
I think it’s bullshit. I know a boatload of people who take birthcontrol solely for medical purposes, and it SHOULD be covered my insurance.
well its understandable… Viagra is for old men and birth control is normally targeted tothe younger generation..however that is pretty lame because i know a few people that when they were anemic they had to be put on birth control pills to regulate their periods.
birth control covers more medical issues than viagra (this is obvious, i do not feel the need to elaborate), and only 2% of viagra users use viagra for its “medical use”.
it’s misogynistic bullshit and if you disagree, then you’re more likely than not, a sexist. (or just insane.)
BC can be used for medical conditions, like balancing out an unruly period, the details of which are better left unsaid! this is absurdly stupid!
i absolutely think insurance should cover birth control.
if not getting preggo is a choice for a woman (meanning no having sex), then not having sex for an old man is also a choice.
oh, and, A LOT of women use BC not because they’re sexually active and dont want to get knocked up, but because they have acne problems and wierd periods. thats definatly a medical condition.
fuck you insurance companies.
Yes,insurance should pay both of them!
Why does the argument seem to be centered around justifying why a woman might need her birth control? It’s not like we should get some sort of medal for using it to clear up acne or get rid of cramps instead of using it to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is a medical condition (according to the Mayo Clinic, but what do they know?), which makes hormonal and non-hormonal birth control options basically the same as a flu shot. Yes, having sex is a choice. But all kinds of women use birth control in all kinds of different relationships, many of them married; is anyone willing to argue that unmarried men not be prescribed Viagra?
I know everybody gets all excited about controlling other people’s sex lives (how dare those uppity women have sex without babies!), but keeping women from accessing safe, effective, and affordable forms of birth control does not lower the rate of premarital sex. It merely raises the rate of unintended pregnancies.
And yes, just for the record, it is sexist. We navigate a medical system that treats middle-aged heterosexual males as the normative. What do you expect?
I don’t think that’s right, I mean, birth control should be insured because it prevents pregnancy.
thats bs but i think most insurance do cover it, and I know plan parent hood is known for giving that stuff out for free. Not quite sure on how that works tho.
I think that BOTH should be covered. I mean, one could even argue, “Why cover Viagra? It’s not like people HAVE to have sex, it’s a choice.”
Well,they’re both for the opposite purpose, but I think they should cover both and watch who they’re prescribing it to.Isn’t viagra supposed to be for impotent men and oldys?
A man who wants to buy Viagra Viagra could use the word in his search online for erectile dysfunction. Rarely is a person in the word, which is not related to Viagra, if you plan to buy Viagra. So what is Viagra for the seller to do, bearing in mind here especially the psychological aspect of the buyers, would try to inculcate in the content on his site, words such as Viagra, Cialis, buy viagra, discount viagra.
generic kamagra
Viagra helps with problems associated with erectile dysfunction. Although a wide range of information available for Viagra, some items are a bit vague, especially for those who have read the information, which is directed toward the medical community. Who wants to know Viagra, simple terms the layman, are somewhat unfortunate. However, here are some common questions about Viagra, and some easy to understand answers. Once you understand the pros and cons of Viagra, which will decide if this could be an effective treatment for you would be much easier.
generic viagra
I absolutely respect and appreciate your point on each and every object.
whole life insurance quotes
Fantastic work guys im a fan of your website. Get the facts
I love to read and appreciate your work.
life insurance costs
Thumbs up guys your doing a really good job.
life insurance rates