It's a birth defect

[cjsmith]

My X chromosome is acting up again. I'm hunched in a nearly-foetal position, perched on the edge of my chair here at work, waiting for the painkillers to kick in.

Yet again the amazement rolls over me: medical science has so far done nothing about this problem. They don't fully understand its cause, they don't have a cure, they can't even usually mask the symptoms (ok I admit I haven't tried narcotics). If men as a group had anywhere near this much trouble from one syndrome, it would be Medical Enemy Number One. There'd be bazillion dollar grants to try to cure it. Until a cure was found, a man desiring corrective surgery to remove the whole offending area would be supported and empathized with and probably have the whole thing paid for by insurance. (Viagra is covered by many medical plans! That's about as medically necessary as a toupee! That's the type of service GUYS get, while I pay all my OTC painkiller costs AND my birth control pills out of pocket.)

Why are women so hated?

Comments

Viagara vs. BCP

[abz6598.livejournal.com]

Impotence is an infirmity (so to speak), getting/not getting pregnant is not.

That is to say, Viagara corrects a medical condition; it fixes someting that is not doing what its supposed.

If women believe that BCP should be covered under prescriptions then would they also expect condoms, abortions, and fertility treatments to be covered under them as well?

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I was speaking of the BCPs as a hormonal application for pain. This is the major reason I am on them.

But since you asked, there is a bit of a parallel: Viagra lets a guy have sex, birth control makes it much more likely the gal will say yes to sex. So they're both there for you, John! :-)

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[abz6598.livejournal.com]

As a hormonal app for pain, sure. That makes sense. I can go along with that.

The whole Viagra-is-covered-so-BCP-should-be-too argument, on the other hand, I have a problem with.

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I'm in a feisty mood, so let's put another spin on the Viagra/BCP thing: suffering. How much does the man suffer if he doesn't get Viagra? How much does the woman suffer if she doesn't get the Pill? I contend they're not only comparable, but the woman's got it worse.

I guess the whole argument pivots around what health care is for. Is it about making our bodies work the way "Nature intended"? (In which case, dump Viagra. Nature's fine with some people, especially older people, not breeding.) Is it about making our bodies work the way we WISH they worked? (In which case, cover BCPs and Viagra.) Is it about making our bodies work the way some standard youthful body works? (In which case, cover Viagra, as well as facelifts and arguably sex changes.) Is it about reducing pain? What exactly is it about?

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

If women believe that BCP should be covered under prescriptions then would they also expect condoms, abortions, and fertility treatments to be covered under them as well?


Yes.

Pregnancy may not be an "illness" (although many doctors still treat it as such....), but it is a condition that affects the human body. Unwanted pregnancy costs much much more than condoms. As with so many other medical conditions, our system is completely screwed up. We treat the RESULTS of neglect of our bodies, but not always the less-expensive prevention that would keep it from happening. Case in point, my dental plan underwent a change in policies a couple years ago. Previously, I was covered for 2 exams per year, as should be, since that's what's recommended. They then changed it to cover only one regular exam per year, but increased the emergency visit coverage to 2 per year. Result--if I DON'T take care of my teeth, the treatment is paid for. But if I DO, it's not.

Providing minimal coverage for condoms and even some abortions (incest, anyone?) is logical, as it prevents further costs down the road. Fertility treatments fall under your own stated OK reason for Viagra: "it fixes someting that is not doing what its supposed."

Yes, BCP should be covered, as should access to other forms of birth control, preventive medicine, and a basic level of care for every human being on the planet.

Then again, my political compass (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.html) results put me firmly in the libertarian left quadrant, so YMMV.

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[abz6598.livejournal.com]

Yes, BCP should be covered, as should access to other forms of birth control, preventive medicine, and a basic level of care for every human being on the planet.


Egads! For every human being on the planet? Surely youre not espousing the idea that basic health care is a 'right'? (Which of course leads to the questions - what is 'basic'? At whose expense? etc.)

As for birth control, why not carry it a step further? Will we demand that insurance companies pay for condoms for gay couple to prevent HIV/AIDS since this will "prevent further costs down the road"? If not, then arent you setting up the same double-standard that you seem to think exists for male/female treatments and applying it to straight/gay couples?


Encouraging preventative measures is a good idea, certainly. It makes wonderful economic sense. But if BCP prevents unwanted expense down the road then isnt that also saying fertility treatments, which you say should be covered, would cause unwanted expenses down the road since they both produce exactly opposite results?

Insurance covering abortions for incidences of incest seems even further hair-splitting. Cover abortions for incest but what about for rape? Or contraceptive failure? Or simple change of mind?

In the case of the always alluring cjsmith I could see BCP being covered under insurance if its prescribed as a measure to relieve her pain. Maybe it would make more sense if insurance covered birth control but not the costs resulting from the lack of use of birth control. That is to say, we'll pay for your pills but if you dont use them and get pregnant dont expect us to foot the bill for your delivery and hospital stay.

Additionally, comparing Viagra and BCP seems sort of apples/orange-y.

It might make more sense to compare them as what they are. If they dont cover BCP and tubal ligation then they shouldnt cover condoms and vasectomies.

If they do cover Viagra then they should cover drugs that enable women to have sex. (And dont say that BCP enable women to have sex...thats like saying condoms allow men to have sex. I'm talking about having sex in the physical everything-seems-to-be-working-sense.)

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

God(dess) forbid that every human being should be in good health and have a right to feel good.

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[abz6598.livejournal.com]

My problem is with it being a 'right'. At whose expense? You can certainly feel as good as you want and you can have all the health care you want...just dont expect me to pay for your doctor.

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

That's fine. As long as I don't have to pay for your library, or your postal workers, or your street upkeep, either. Draw the line wherever you damn please. I still maintain that there should be a basic level of healthcare available to all. They manage it in other countries, why not here?

Re: Viagara vs. BCP

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

That's fine. As long as I don't have to pay for your library, or your postal workers, or your street upkeep, either.

Or your erections.

Come to think of it, there's something particularly *cruel* about asking women to help foot the bill for men's erections -- and then not sharing the cost of birth control. 'Specially considering how poorly men and women share the cost of parenting.