Turn it on in browser settings to view this mobile website.
by Jen Sorensen
July 30, 2008 - 1:03 pm
Taxpayers spend $6.2 billion every year on public assistance for Walmart employees who make too little money to make ends meet. (vvoe / Shutterstock.com)
Cartoonist Jen Sorenson takes on John McCain’s stumble over insurance coverage for birth control vs. for Viagra:
On paper, Viagra is the cure for a dysfunction, namely erectile dysfunction. On that basis, medical insurance should cover Viagra. Let’s face it, though…Viagra is probably being over-prescribed. I mean, what’s the doctor gonna do? Test and see if the patient really has ED? If I was the doctor, I would take the patient’s word for it, if he was married and old enough to really have ED. On the basis that Viagra has become a recreational drug that is overprescribed, it should not be covered by medical insurance.
Birth control, however, is not a cure for a dysfunction or disease, and should not be covered by medical insurance. As birth control can function as an abortifacient, it should not be covered by insurance. As birth control has a long-term track record of increasing sexual promiscuity and the spread of STIs, it should not be covered by insurance.
First, please state which studies have indicated that birth control use is correlated with “sexual promiscuity and and the spread of STIs,” instead of stating it as fact. Also, how do you figure birth control is an abortifacient? As far as I know, there are no scientific studies that have proven this to be true. It also greatly depends on one’s definition of pregnancy, and according to the American Medical Association, birth control would not be defined this way.
Furthermore, I believe you have to have a pretty limited understanding and appreciation of preventive medicine when you do not consider something that prevents a medical condition (in this case pregnancy) as medically necessary. For those women under 35 and who don’t smoke, using a hormonal method of birth control is actually safer than carrying a pregnancy to term (check the facts in the patient information booklet included with every pack of the pill).
Just because docs have dressed up ED with a fancy latin name, “erectile dysfunction” doesn’t mean it’s a disease of any kind. Any more than “height challenged” (short) people have a disease. ED just means that a man can’t get an erection (which is a totally normal thing – happens all the time). If he has a medical condition which inhibits his sex life – treat that.
Yes, having babies is normal too as is wanting to decide how many and when. The issue is one of PARITY. If my insurance company covers prescription drugs for men, why doesn’t it cover prescription drugs for women?
There is no greater insult to women than to state that a hypothetical egg which has been fertilised a few hours ago is as important as she is. If you’re going to argue against a woman’s right to her own body, at least work with something real. This pill argument is ridiculous. Even if it did do what the anti-choicers say it does, why would it matter? These people would have a woman carry it to term and bring it up in poverty or have it brought up in care just because they don’t give a damn about that. Oh, but they really feel tragic about those eggs which don’t think or feel.
And McCain trying to control it, too! As a man, he can never understand what it means to a woman to control her own reproduction, nor can any man. That’s just the way it is. I’ll never know what it means to a man to have erection problems or anything else men have. If men could be pregnant, this whole ‘debate’ wouldn’t exist.
“I would take the patient’s word for it, if he was married”
I see, the theory is that a doctor should help a married person to have sex but not a single person?
“erectile dysfunction” isn’t latin, it’s English.