Prickly City by Scott Stantis

Prickly City

Comments (8) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. fbjsr

    fbjsr said, about 3 years ago

    NIght-Guant, I answered this once for you but at your request I will do it again. Your question was why is Viagra covered by insurance but not birth control. To start with my insurance does cover birth control. I have no idea if it covers Viagra. But insurance is something you buy from a private company. It covers whatever you want it to cover. The more it covers the more your monthly premium is. Just like with car insurance, if you want towning you pay more. Maybe because bith control pills are only $30 for a 3 months supply most people would rather pay for it out of pockett than pay for whatever the premium increase would be. Maybe your question that you are trying to ask is why does Medicare pay for Viagra (which it shouldn’t) and not birth control. Maybe because if you are old enough to get medicare you probably don’t need birth control? But Sandra Fluke was not asking why her insurance doesn’t cover birth control, she was asking for the goverment to give it to her for free. Which means taxes taken from you and I. I don’t want to pay for her birth control, if you do I suggest you send her a check directly.

  2. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    As I recall it was about insurance coverage that for some reason the insurance companies refused to do. So maybe you are just wrong in your premise. Your answer really didn’t cover why on both counts of my question. And I’m sure you’d rather pay for unwanted children since they are much cheaper than birth control isn’t it?

  3. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    @fbjsr

    By Sarah Parnass
    @wordsofsarah
    Follow on Twitter
    Feb 1, 2013 4:57pm
    gty sandra fluke jt 120223 wblog Sandra Fluke: New Obama Contraception Rule Is Just Another Step

    Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law grad who spoke out in support of free access to contraception+ last February, downplayed the importance of *President Obama’s proposed compromise with religious groups on birth control coverage almost one year later.

    In an interview with ABC News, Fluke said today’s announcement that religiously-affiliated organizations like universities would not have to pay to cover employees’ contraception was “actually not that big of a departure” from what Obama and the Department of Health and Human Services laid out when they instated mandatory co-pay-free coverage of contraception for women as part of Obamacare last summer.

    Those plans exempted houses of worship from providing insurance that covers birth control, but did not make a special accommodation for institutions with religious ties. Georgetown, where Fluke got her degree, is a Jesuit university.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/sandra-fluke-new-obama-contraception-rule-is-just-another-step/
    -
    Notice “free access” not free from payment. But then your meme is one manufactured by the right wing “think tanks” for you see if the facts don’t fit your narrative you make up your own and work to over whelm the facts with that fiction.

  4. fbjsr

    fbjsr said, about 3 years ago

    @Night-Gaunt49

    Your question was “Why does insurance pay for Viagra and not birth control”? We were discussing Sandra Fluke going before congress saying she was going broke trying to pay for her own birth control. Also I don’t have any un-wanted children, all mine are very much wanted.

  5. Badfisherman

    Badfisherman said, about 3 years ago

    Get Sandra Fluke sterilized. Problem solved.

  6. fbjsr

    fbjsr said, about 3 years ago

    @Night-Gaunt49

    Who in America over the age of 18 doesn’t already have “free access”? Probably younger but I don’t know what all the states laws are.

  7. PastStepOne

    PastStepOne said, about 3 years ago

    @Night-Gaunt49

    The reason Viagra is covered and birth control is optionally covered. (You can get birth control covered under most insurance, it just costs more.):

    Viagra treats a legitimate medical problem. No, having that problem won’t kill you, but it does reduce your quality of life.
    Birth control interferes with a body that is working as intended, as in is fertile. It’s a totally different type of treatment.

    However, many insurances do pay for birth control, you just have to pay for an extra rider to get it covered. ( ;- I know, calling it a rider is funny in this example, but that’s what additional coverages over and above the standard policy are called.) What’s the big deal. Demanding that birth control be paid for by all insurance plans just makes insurance more expensive for women. Especially for women that don’t want or need birth control, since they would be paying for it even if they weren’t using it. Nothing comes for free.

    Government mandated coverage’s are a large part of why insurance is so expensive these days. You used to be able to get a major medical package that was really cheap, like $50 a month and it covered the big stuff, you just had to pay for the little, every day stuff yourself. For most people under 40, it’s really all they need. Now in some states they mandate that chiropractors and acupuncturists are covered and wonder why premiums have gone up.

    Under Obamacare young people’s premiums will be ridiculously high, the estemates I’ve seen are in the $3500 per year neighborhood, when the average person in that age bracket spends $500-$800 a year for their medical costs. All so old people’s insurance is lower, when they have the highest usage and costs of the medical system. It’s one more way of transferring wealth from the young to the old, just like Social Security is doing. Well guess what… Older people are the wealthiest demographic. Young people are the poorest. No surprise there, older people have lived a whole life to accumulate some wealth, the young are just getting started so they have very little. It just amazes me that we rob from the poor to give to the rich in this country.
    And by the way. Liberals always like to portray themselves as Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but that is a complete mis-understanding of the Robin Hood legend. Robin Hood didn’t steal from the rich to give to the poor. He stole from an oppressive over taxing government and gave the money back to the taxpayers that had been fleeced.

  8. PastStepOne

    PastStepOne said, about 3 years ago

    Sorry Shytimes, a conversation from a few days ago bled over to today.

  9. Refresh Comments.