Not A Post For The Boys...

First, my review is scheduled for Thursday. No idea as to the time. If you never hear from me again, know why. The plastic knife can do damage, you know...


Second, whiny men can now have their sexual performance drugs covered by Medicare.

Let me stand on a soapbox for a moment (like you were going to stop me anyway). Two people, one male and one female, walk into a pharmacy. The man, wanting to perk up his sex life, grabs Viagra. The woman, wanting to avoid pregnancy, picks up her birth control. Flash to the register: the man lays his co-pay of $5 on the counter and walks out content with life. The woman lays $5 down, and is told that her insurance does not cover the cost of prescription contraception and that she must pay the expense herself out of pocket. (For the guys, Ortho Tri-Cyclen, one of the most popular pills, runs about $80 per month, though others may run around $30 I believe.)

Women are largely forced to deal with contraception. First, if something were to occur, it affect them a lot more than it affects the guy. More importantly, however, other than sterilization, I do not believe that the FDA has yet approved any prescription birth control for men. Most typical forms of birth control are intended for a woman's use only, such as oral contraceptives, contraceptive injections, diaphragms, and cervical caps, intrauterine devices, and hormonal implants. Accordingly, the result is paying for prescription contraceptives lies primarily with women.

When Viagra initially come out, it wasn't covered by insurance. So we see that all the pissy men went and filed lawsuits demanding coverage. Viola! Judges, the legislature, and health care individuals determined that Viagara should be covered. (The individuals making these decisions were mostly male, and probably mostly using Viagara...ok, that was uncalled for.) Conversely, after fifty years of birth control, it still is not covered by the majority of employers (including, by the way, the federal government). Viagra now demonstrates the inequities of health insurance coverage.

The federal government's own actions place the burden of birth control solely on women. This disparity arguably constitutes sex discrimination against women (a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). While universal health care is occassionally debated, no one wants to discuss the inequalities of health care itself. AND, if my health care plans does not cover the same "necessities" as men's health care plans (and I maintain my birth control is a lot more necessary than Bob Dole's orgasms), then why should my health insurance cost just as much?

Moreover, birth control is not solely to avoid getting pregnant. A fair number (though admittedly not a majority) are on birth control because it regulates their cramps, excessive bleeding, or other symptoms associated with their period. In fact, if they were not on birth control, the would miss work a day or two a month (a strain on the workforce) or they would have to go to the doctor more often to deal with problems (which is then covered by insurance, and so the insurance companies will actually pay more).

A thought proviking line from the following article:
"Every public dollar spent on contraceptive services prevents $4 in public expenditures on unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. Every dose of Viagra subsidized by private or governmental insurers saves men from sexual frustration and - drumroll, please - the embarrassment of hearing their wives and girlfriends say, "That's OK, honey, it happens to every guy, once in a while."

While this is humerous, it does underscore the problem: why does (and should) men's ego take priority over unwanted pregnancy, a woman's health, affects to the workforce, and changing a women's life completely should she conceive? (please, no pro/anti choice/abortion responses here).

And how exactly is Viagra "medically necessary?" And it will cost $500 billion over a decade?? I can think of a LOT better things to spend the money on.