Witness John McCain’s Straight Talk on Choice
Is silence a form of straight talk? Check out McCain’s response to viagra vs. birth control funding I discussed earlier. Thanks for the tip Molly!
Similar Posts:
- They Have Professional Viagra Now?
- Carly Fiorina Is No Dummy, But Is She A Fool?
- McCain Sites Go Uncensored, Dems Not So Much
Enjoy this post? Leave a comment below or subscribe to my feed. You also can sign up for email delivery by clicking here.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
No trackbacks/pingbacks yet.
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I think the rationale used is that Viagra is a drug to treat a medically-recognized illness, though hardly life-threatening, while birth control pills are a choice and therefore something considered optional. Though from a business stance, one would think paying for pills instead of a delivery and new dependent would be cheaper.
Plus a lot of these laws, Nevada has one, that require insurance companies to cover birth control have a convenient out. They only require actual insurance companies to comply, not self-funded plans. A friend of mine was covered by the local grocery union’s health plan and it did not cover any form of birth control. When they complained to their assemblywoman they were told there was nothing that could be done because the law didn’t apply. This was especially galling to them as their union was spending so much money bad-mouthing Wal-Mart’s insurance plan.
The rationale for coverage is not the point. The point is that it doesn’t make any sense to cover rogaine and viagra and not birth control, and Carly Fiorina gets that, and hears about it all the time from women and presented it as a case for McCain’s “consumer-driven healthcare.” Most importantly, laws can be changed and should be. McCain will not facilitate that change and has in fact voted against it:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00045#position
But that is the point. Impotency is considered a disease and pregnancy isn’t. Is it right or fair? I’m not saying that. From a cost-basis I would think preventing pregnancy would be the better bet from an insurance accountant’s POV.
But most the laws that have been passed target the usual boogeyman, the evil insurance industry. Leaving out union self-funded plans, or others seems a curious ommission.