RE: limits on Viagra (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


SternSkipper -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/13/2012 7:28:13 PM)

quote:

Braille, honey.. that's why God gave you hands.


Excellent point <donning blindfold> "Oh, ladies ... Time to play pin the sub down with the Dom"




xssve -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/13/2012 9:29:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble


quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

All that wood and you can't find the hearth.


Braille, honey.. that's why God gave you hands. [:D]

I follow my nose.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/13/2012 9:34:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/third-female-lawmaker-introduces-bill-limit-men-viagra-204340160.html

If women can be limited, why not men?


Well....I never!

(But...in a pinch....)




thishereboi -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 5:22:15 AM)

While I understand their anger over the bills that have been popping up lately, I don't see how spending hours making up fake bills is going to help. Why not spend all that time and energy trying to fix things instead of standing around talking about how stupid the other side is.




DesideriScuri -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 5:58:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
thats the whole point, it is a sarcastic dig at the transvaginal incident. thats why Kalis quote gives it away as being tongue in cheek
PS prostate exam might be given to rule out any other problem that can cause issues with non erections.
The walls between the bladder, bowel and prostate are thinner there and best felt thru the rectum for irregularities.


You really felt the need to instruct me on why a rectal exam is used to check the prostate? Really?

Oh, and, well, the requirement for the rectal exam for purposes of this legislation wouldn't be to find if there are other reasons for the E.D. A physician worth his/her salt looking to actually take care of the patient would have already checked into that previously.

It was a very well put cover, though. I do have to give you props on that.




DesideriScuri -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 6:02:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
While I understand their anger over the bills that have been popping up lately, I don't see how spending hours making up fake bills is going to help. Why not spend all that time and energy trying to fix things instead of standing around talking about how stupid the other side is.


Because they (government, not the several women introducing the bills specifically) are the problem. The only way to truly fix the problem is to remove the cause, and, if nothing else, a politician (most members, regardless of party affiliation) are all about securing their own jobs until they retire.




Iamsemisweet -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 7:44:41 AM)

The picture on a cigarette pack would be akin to the ultrasound only if the picture cost the smoker an extra 400 bucks. I would venture to say that not many women who have made their way to an abortion clinic are going to change their mind as a result of an ultrasound. The sole purpose is to make the procedure prohibitively expensive. At least be honest about it.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What is the point of the ultrasound prior to abortion? Is it to check the conditions of the internal organs of the woman? Nope. It's so she can see what it is she is asking to be destroyed. Some women won't be moved to abort the procedure (pun intended), but some will. And, that's the point.

The ultrasound requirement is more akin to the proposed requirement to have pictures of smokers' lungs on packages of cigarettes.

quote:


Missouri state Rep. Stacey Newman, a Democrat, introduced legislation that would allow men to get vasectomies only if their life depended upon the procedure, which was similar to Georgia state Rep. Yasmin Neal's bill. "In determining whether a vasectomy is necessary, no regard shall be made to the desire of a man to father children, his economic situation, his age, the number of children he is currently responsible for, or any danger to his wife or partner in the event a child is conceived," the tongue-in-cheek Missouri bill reads.


According to Rep. Newman, a vasectomy is equal to an abortion? Do these women actually think before putting this out there?!? A vasectomy would be similar (though much less invasive) to a tubal ligation. Anyone who seriously supports these things is simply out for the media circus. The legislation is utterly ridiculous.

Equating Viagra to an abortion is incredibly stupid from the get go.

All that being said, I don't think the Government should subsidize Viagra (or similar medicinal concoctions), either. I couldn't care less if insurance companies want to cover it. That's up to the insurer. Same goes for any and all other procedures/medicines.




Iamsemisweet -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 7:47:09 AM)

Hours? Maybe 15 minutes and a press conference.
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

While I understand their anger over the bills that have been popping up lately, I don't see how spending hours making up fake bills is going to help. Why not spend all that time and energy trying to fix things instead of standing around talking about how stupid the other side is.




kalikshama -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 7:54:13 AM)

quote:

What is the point of the ultrasound prior to abortion? Is it to check the conditions of the internal organs of the woman? Nope. It's so she can see what it is she is asking to be destroyed. Some women won't be moved to abort the procedure (pun intended), but some will. And, that's the point.


Do you approve of state-mandated medically unnecessary procedures?














Iamsemisweet -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 8:04:37 AM)

I am assuming that when you say the "cause", you are referring to the need of politicians to become involved in women's private health care decisions? I would like that removed also.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

Because they (government, not the several women introducing the bills specifically) are the problem. The only way to truly fix the problem is to remove the cause and, if nothing else, a politician (most members, regardless of party affiliation) are all about securing their own jobs until they retire.





DesideriScuri -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 8:06:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
The picture on a cigarette pack would be akin to the ultrasound only if the picture cost the smoker an extra 400 bucks. I would venture to say that not many women who have made their way to an abortion clinic are going to change their mind as a result of an ultrasound. The sole purpose is to make the procedure prohibitively expensive. At least be honest about it.


What if it was covered? There's no one saying that the ultrasound cost would be borne solely by the pregnant woman (or the baby-daddy).

Don't forget the only ones who will see this being "prohibitively expensive" are the ones either won't buy insurance, instead choosing to pay out of pocket, or the ones who don't know where their closest planned parenthood is.




kalikshama -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 8:13:35 AM)

I have insurance through the VA and my GYN in Florida wouldn't prescribe a medication my uterus needs. I checked into going to Planned Parenthood, and unless I was willing to lie about my income, it WAS more money than I was willing to spend.

Fortunately, my new GYN here in Mass was willing to prescribe it.

eta - actually, I may have checked into PP when I wanted to get a diaphragm but didn't want to see the VA GYN because after his patriarchal, condescending attitude at my first visit, I had no intention of getting naked for him.











Iamsemisweet -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 8:15:04 AM)

DS, I am not as certain as you seem to be that all insurance covers abortion. I know insurance doesn't cover medically unnecessary procedures, so I am also not as certain as you that insurance will cover a legally mandated ultrasound. As for PP, even if they are charging on a sliding scale, the procedure costs someone money. Some PPs don't offer abortions either.




DesideriScuri -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 8:15:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
I am assuming that when you say the "cause", you are referring to the need of politicians to become involved in women's private health care decisions? I would like that removed also.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

Because they (government, not the several women introducing the bills specifically) are the problem. The only way to truly fix the problem is to remove the cause and, if nothing else, a politician (most members, regardless of party affiliation) are all about securing their own jobs until they retire.




Not exactly. Do I think gub'mint needs to get out of women's private health care decisions? Absolutely.
Do I think gub'mint needs to get out of American Citizens' private health care decisions? Absolutely.
Do I think gub'mint needs to get out of paying for American Citizens' private health care decisions? Absolutely.
Do I think gub'mint needs to get out of regulating every single part of our lives? No.
Do I think gub'mint needs to reduce its encroachment into every single part of our lives? Absolutely.

I am of the opinion that if Government were to be limited to those things that are only Constitutional - and here is the most important part - according to a Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution, we would have cheaper almost everything. We might even have cheaper everything. Government would be smaller. People would be more self-reliant. Gross consumption would drop and the tax burden on the American Citizen would drop. If we were to institute a consumption tax system instead of a earnings and consumptive tax system, I think we'd be even that much more well off.

I won't be holding my breath since the current mindset of victimhood and entitlement are so deeply ingrained in our national psyche will prevent the necessary changes.




DesideriScuri -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 8:17:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
Do you approve of state-mandated medically unnecessary procedures?


Nope. I'm not in favor of state-mandated medical procedures. Period.

Any more questions that you shouldn't need to ask because I've already answered them in one form or another?




ashjor911 -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 8:19:04 AM)

Once I did have viagra pill, just for fun..after 5 hours of pain & fullRockHradEriction.. it did lost the fun factor.[&:]




Owner59 -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 8:19:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

While I understand their anger over the bills that have been popping up lately, I don't see how spending hours making up fake bills is going to help. Why not spend all that time and energy trying to fix things instead of standing around talking about how stupid the other side is.

Well......sometimes children need corner time and to have their toys taken away for a while to make them behave.......




DesideriScuri -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 8:25:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
DS, I am not as certain as you seem to be that all insurance covers abortion. I know insurance doesn't cover medically unnecessary procedures, so I am also not as certain as you that insurance will cover a legally mandated ultrasound.


Seriously? If a medically unnecessary procedure can be mandated, can you seriously not see a mandate for insurance to cover Government mandated procedures? The Obama Administration seems to think they can mandate that insurance companies cover the cost of birth control, whether medically necessary or not. How would this not fall into a similar category?

quote:


As for PP, even if they are charging on a sliding scale, the procedure costs someone money.


Stop!! You're damn right! Every procedure costs someone money. Nothing is free. Everything ends up getting paid for. Who should bear the cost? You? Me? The person providing the service? The American Taxpayer? The person receiving the service?

Answer carefully.

quote:


Some PPs don't offer abortions either.


Bet those locations can provide assistance in finding their clientele no-cost or low-cost providers. Hell, you can't get a mammogram from PP, but you can get assistance in finding where to get a mammogram, and assistance in paying for it (don't forget the Komen Foundation flap).




DesideriScuri -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 8:33:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
I have insurance through the VA and my GYN in Florida wouldn't prescribe a medication my uterus needs. I checked into going to Planned Parenthood, and unless I was willing to lie about my income, it WAS more money than I was willing to spend.
Fortunately, my new GYN here in Mass was willing to prescribe it.
eta - actually, I may have checked into PP when I wanted to get a diaphragm but didn't want to see the VA GYN because after his patriarchal, condescending attitude at my first visit, I had no intention of getting naked for him.


Write this down: If you have a medically necessary need and your physician/OB/GYN won't prescribe it, it is either not medically necessary (in which case it wouldn't fit this situation in the first place), it would cause greater harm, or that doctor isn't following through on the Hippocratic Oath and should be sued for malpractice. (write it down because we probably agree here)

And, I am also of the opinion that VA or TriCare needs to be strengthened, not reduced like it is being talked about for retirees.




kalikshama -> RE: limits on Viagra (3/14/2012 8:34:47 AM)

Four doctors since 2001 considered it medically necessary (I move around a lot); the VA GYN in Florida did not want to prescribe it because it was not in the VA formulary.

My new GYN managed to prescribe it because there is an exception when one tries the available medication (in this case, synthetic progesterone) and it does not work as well as the medication not in the formulary.













Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875