• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Think Hobby Lobby is just about 4 forms of birth control? Think again!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fanatical Meat said:
Technically these increase pregnancies. However its a good point and I'm fine with this.
Click to expand...

Viagra may increase the chances due to more sex taking place though I would say most that are taking it have wives that are post menopause. Testosterone therapy on the other hand reduces sperm count.

Both improve the quality of life of older men.
 
Matt1970 said:
I just can't wait until the government is in total control of what covered and what isn't.
Click to expand...

As opposed to a corporation that can potentially refuse to provide insurance to their gay employees because "God hates gays". I have no problems with government setting a baseline for and regulating what is called "medical insurance".
 
pcgeek11 said:
No. It is not about controlling women. I don't think they should be required to provide birth control or abortion pills to anyone if they do not want to. They do not provide you guys with rubbers do they? Why not? It is the same thing. Women's health has nothing to do with birth control. They are two different things. Birth control doesn't make you healthier. Plus they are not stopping these women from getting birth control, they can purchase it any time they want. Just as I can buy a pack of rubbers.
Click to expand...

This - if places are required to purchase birth control for women they should be required to cover condoms / viagra for males - just as if they are required to pay for abortions they should be required to pay for women who want to get pregnant to go through in vetro fertilization - but those women don't get their procedure paid for - why is only one side of the equation getting benefits... these aren't health issues - they are elective procedures / items and should not be covered.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
^^to me the big difference is condoms are no prescription and BC is prescription only.
Click to expand...
I think we both know the answer to this - make condoms prescription-only so they cost 10x as much and are rarely used. It's the American way.
I'm curious what would happen if birth control pills did not require a prescription. If alcohol and getting pregnant requires no prescription, I don't see a reason for birth control needing one. This would immediately fix the cost argument. Mass marketing makes things cost less.
 
RandomWords said:
This - if places are required to purchase birth control for women they should be required to cover condoms / viagra for males - just as if they are required to pay for abortions they should be required to pay for women who want to get pregnant to go through in vetro fertilization - but those women don't get their procedure paid for - why is only one side of the equation getting benefits... these aren't health issues - they are elective procedures / items and should not be covered.
Click to expand...

Most insurance plans do cover viagra for men. Condoms are not considered a medical device however and so are not covered (physicians do not prescribe condoms). Devices like vacuum and implantable penis pumps, are covered as they are medical devices prescribed by physicians. Furthermore surgical procedures such as vasectomies are also covered.

In terms of women, oral contraceptives are prescription FDA approved medications and so are covered by most insurance plans. Implantable contraceptives such as IUDs and surgical contraception such as fallopian tube libagation, and etc are also covered. Most insurance plans will cover routine assistance with fertilization (ie GNRH agonists, OCPs, etc; medications commonly used for women with fertility issues). These insurance plans also cover medical assistance for men with fertility issues in a similar capacity (low sperm count problems can be treated with similar medications used to improve fertility in women, etc). In vitro fertilization coverage, is variable depending on your insurance plan with some plans covering and some not (its very expensive and completely elective).
 
Last edited:
Sunburn74 said:
Most insurance plans do cover viagra for men. Condoms are not considered a medical device however and so are not covered (physicians do not prescribe condoms). Devices like vacuum and implantable penis pumps, are covered as they are medical devices prescribed by physicians. Furthermore surgical procedures such as vasectomies are also covered.

In terms of women, oral contraceptives are prescription FDA approved medications and so are covered by most insurance plans. Implantable contraceptives such as IUDs and surgical contraceptions such as fallopian tube libagation, and etc are also covered.
Click to expand...

Good job! Way to get yourself on the righties ignore list with your facts!
 
Other than a monthly limit on the amount of viagra the insurance company covers, there usually is no problem with viagra.
 
Sunburn74 said:
Other than a monthly limit on the amount of viagra the insurance company covers, there usually is no problem with viagra.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be covered either, although I'm surprised Democrats didn't mandate it be covered with no copay as well. Who knows it might be in somewhere in the depths of the law.
 
And if the company owners are Christian Scientists, your health coverage will consist a book of prayers, no doctors, no hospitals, no drug coverage, but perhaps a toll free number to a prayer line.
 
I think it should be covered.

If a condition is a consequence of a pathologic process (erectile dysfunction is most commonly caused by the same process that causes heart attacks, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease: accumulation of cholesterol in arteries) and treatment is proven to improve a patient's quality of life, the treatment should be covered. If it were up to me, IVF would be covered as well (often infertility can be linked to pre-existing medical disease).

OCPs also improve the quality of lives of many women. Prevention of pregnancy is important (many married couples do not want children and wish to avoid this issue), and these drugs have many non-contraceptive uses including for example managing hemorrhaging from menses, treatment of cystic ovarian disease, management of endometriosis, treatment of perimenopausal symptoms, management of atrophic vaginal disorders, etc etc

At the end of the day, I think its hard to judge what is NEEDED and what is elective. I mean, if a man has knee pain and only surgery can allow him to walk, does he NEED that surgery? He can after all just use a wheelchair or crutches and take pain killers. If a man has a disfiguring skin disorder that is life threatening, once the life threatening portion is taken care of, does he NEED medical care to address the disfigurement? After all its just looks and he doesn't have to look attractive to anyone? (The treatment of acne BTW is covered by pretty much all insurance plans). Such thoughts to me are appalling. You can't put a price on the value of some feature of health to a person. I'd lean towards covering most things, more often than not. Anyway I've said enough. I think I will bow out of the rest of this thread.
 
Last edited:
MtnMan said:
And if the company owners are Christian Scientists, your health coverage will consist a book of prayers, no doctors, no hospitals, no drug coverage, but perhaps a toll free number to a prayer line.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, the five Republican Clerics on SCOTUS will decide which religions are legitimate, and which are undeserving of having their beliefs protected.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
If its an unwanted pregnancy they in fact do have health benefits.
Click to expand...

Fanatical Meat said:
Please explain this I'm interested in the logic
Click to expand...

Its not my logic its yours.

Apparently you are redefining the body acting properly, but in a way that annoys you, as a health condition that needs treating

So by that logic if your boobs don't grow big enough, and that annoys you, getting a boob job would have health benefits.
 
glenn1 said:
It shouldn't be covered either, although I'm surprised Democrats didn't mandate it be covered with no copay as well. Who knows it might be in somewhere in the depths of the law.
Click to expand...

Why?

Viagra is used by men. Democrats don't give a shit about men. And view them merely as slaves to serve women.
 
nehalem256 said:
Its not my logic its yours.

Apparently you are redefining the body acting properly, but in a way that annoys you, as a health condition that needs treating

So by that logic if your boobs don't grow big enough, and that annoys you, getting a boob job would have health benefits.
Click to expand...

Interesting, you made quite a leap there with "my logic"
 
pcgeek11 said:
No. It is not about controlling women. I don't think they should be required to provide birth control or abortion pills to anyone if they do not want to. They do not provide you guys with rubbers do they? Why not? It is the same thing.

Women's health has nothing to do with birth control. They are two different things. Birth control doesn't make you healthier. Plus they are not stopping these women from getting birth control, they can purchase it any time they want. Just as I can buy a pack of rubbers.
Click to expand...

they are absolutely not the same thing.

this is why you are stupid.
 
The real reason is that they want women to have more babies to provide a cheap source of uneducated labour.

But if anyone asks, you didn't hear this from me and I don't exist.

/tinfoil hat on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top