Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumABC News 10 years ago: "Erections Get Insurance; Why Not the Pill?"
I surfed onto the following article, and was surprised that it was written almost 10 years ago:
Within weeks of hitting the U.S. market in 1998, more than half of Viagra prescriptions received health insurance coverage. If many women weren't already outraged that they had to pay for birth control out of pocket, they were infuriated at the preference given to the anti-impotence pills.
...
This week, New York became the 20th state to require that insurers and employers provide contraceptive coverage. That means that half of U.S. women now live in states requiring at least some birth control coverage, according to Planned Parenthood. Massachusetts and Arizona passed similar bills earlier this year that will go into effect in 2003.
MORE...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91538
...
This week, New York became the 20th state to require that insurers and employers provide contraceptive coverage. That means that half of U.S. women now live in states requiring at least some birth control coverage, according to Planned Parenthood. Massachusetts and Arizona passed similar bills earlier this year that will go into effect in 2003.
MORE...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91538
Considering Rush's earlier legal problems with Viagra (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1753947.html), his vile remarks about contraception coverage certainly raise the question of boner-pill coverage for men. Any surprise he's not equally outraged by insurance for erections?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1813 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ABC News 10 years ago: "Erections Get Insurance; Why Not the Pill?" (Original Post)
JaneQPublic
Mar 2012
OP
IndyJones
(1,068 posts)1. Isn't that interesting? So insurance should cover him with is doctor shopping so he can receive
all kinds of different pain pills AND viagra issued in someone else's name, but birth control....oh, that's horrific! So is Rush a slut for taking viagra?
Cosmocat
(14,566 posts)2. You would THINK
that what these people SAY their objections are, that all of this moral/fiscal outrage would be over Viagra, not the pill.
The "liberal media" has been interjecting this all along, right?
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)3. It was a legitimate complaint ten years ago. It's not anymore.
Since then most insurance plans have changed to include birth control and still only about half cover viagra. Medicare covered viagra briefly after the prescription drug benefit was instituted, but dropped it shortly afterwards, and that dispute was in the news also.
JaneQPublic
(7,113 posts)4. Interesting. Have any links, or did you just pull those details out of your
head?