Saturday, March 03, 2012
The Giggles Layaway Plan or should the Gov't subsidize sex toys 'n' gadgetz?
Now there be some poor folk out there who can't afford some of the finer Giggles products or any Giggles products for that matter, they work hard all day for chump change and so some dumpy frumpy middle-aged housewife with an alcoholic husband is caught filching a dildo and winds up on some poster called Loser of the Month with her name and where she's from for all to see. The sex'chal needs of the Poor, they're not being met. IF there is this overriding societal need out there to prevent conception at all costs, the Senate just ko'd some conscience bill put up by the stuffy Republicans to cancel out Obama's contraceptive mandate, then by the same standard the sex act itself needs to be enhanced, better enjoyed and performed for overall physical, emotional and spiritual well-being. You cannot have one w/o the other, pills and other birth-control devices without the other sexual accoutrements that normally go into a fun and romantic evening. It's time to finally get Government out of the bedroom once and for all by subsidizing sex toys and marital aids, along with the free pills for women insurance can now cover at no rise in premiums of course the other goodies. K-Y is important of course, just saw a commercial for this fine product on primetime mainstream television no less just the other day. Anal beads, butt plugs, masturbation sleeves, cock rings and so on through the catalogue and so as not to discriminate against our gay friends and co-workers the Jelly Fist should be covered at no extra cost. It's enlightened, it's progressive and it just makes good sense. Now this is sure to create a firestorm, a brouhaha, a controversy with a capital C and it's only shocking because the idea is so new. Of course when the first few bills come up it will quickly break down into predictable party lines with the Democrats taking the more permissive position as they can always be counted on to do and the pasty Republicans can then be painted as a club of mostly repressed Puritans, mostly male and white at that, anti-poor folk and anti-the women. What they really want is a Theocracy. By opposing the sex-toy mandate they just want the good ole guv'ment more in your bedroom than ever. Let's get it out of the bedroom and into the kitchen where it belongs:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have no idea what the point of the post is.
ReplyDeleteBut in case you are unaware, as is the spiritual leader of the GOP, Limbaugh, "the pill" is not just for contraception. It has several other therapeutic uses, and even nuns as well as perimenopausal women have been known to take it as a medication.
Apparently it's only sexually repressed conservative men who think women are writhing in sexual heat at all time and want "the pill" so that they're not popping out little joy bundles nine months after their raging libidinous nights of satanic orgies.
If Viagra, a medication solely to get Mr. Johnson to stand up for what he wants, is covered by insurance, then it's sensible for insurance companies to cover "the pill" which can control women's health problems, and also be used to prevent conception.
Not everyone believes every ovum and sperm is sacred, so not every attempt at preventing unwanted pregnancies is the work of Beelzebub.
People need to come to terms with the fact that we humans have sex, we have it often, and with gusto. It is a wonderful, mysterious, and glorious fact of life that even the RCC in all its repressive and anti-happy-sex-for-the-sheer-pleasure of sex proscriptions will never, never, never stamp out.
Amen.
My gf Kristie works at theVA medical center. They do penile pump implants there. I guess if you stormed the beaches of Normandy or got all stormin' Norman in Iraq you can get yours. When they get off they deflate really fast and the old geezers fly around the room like a party balloon.
ReplyDelete"When they get off they deflate really fast and the old geezers fly around the room like a party balloon."
ReplyDeleteThis is an image that will be difficult to get rid of.
And for good reason.
ReplyDeleteOf course Shaw doesn't "get it" because Z-man is completely mocking the liberal mindset that seems to think that the everyone ELSE should pay for whatever the lib's want.
ReplyDeleteBeth, tax-payers are not paying for contraception coverage, private insurance companies are.
ReplyDeleteBut it is interesting to note that insurance also covers the cost of Mr. Johnson's Viagra, and has for some time, and I never heard a peep out of the sex police over that.
The pill is not just for contraception, it is a legitimate treatment for female medical conditions.
Do you really have a problem with private insurance companies providing coverage for that?
Yeah yeah score one for red team.
ReplyDeleteYour arguments have become tired and stale Beth.
This red team/blue team bs is a piss poor attempt of yours to deflect from the rampant spending of which your candidate of choice Mr. Santorum (or really it could be Mitt or Newt as well) was culpable.
Really Soap? My arguments are tired and stale, but you can use the same argument over and over and you are being "consistent". Nice spin.
ReplyDeleteDo you really have a problem with private insurance companies providing coverage for that?
ReplyDeleteYes.
Let me change my yes to a yes, if the pill is for preventing pregnancy, that is not a medical condition. If the pill is to help a medical condition, then it should be covered.
ReplyDeleteThe pill treats specific female medical conditions. What kinds of medical conditions can be helped with birth control pills?
ReplyDeleteCancer prevention for people with a family history.
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS): is a hormonal imbalance which causes irregular menstrual periods, acne, and excess hair growth. Birth control pills work by lowering certain hormone levels to regulate menstrual periods. When hormone levels are decreased to normal, acne and hair growth often improve.
Endometriosis: Most girls with endometriosis have cramps or pelvic pain during their menstrual cycle. Birth control pills are often prescribed to treat endometriosis and work by temporarily preventing periods. When hormonal treatment is prescribed continuously, young women will rarely have periods, or not at all. Since periods can cause pain for young women with endometriosis, stopping periods will usually improve cramps and pelvic pain.
Lack of periods (“amenorrhea”) from low weight, stress, excessive exercise, or damage to the ovaries from radiation or chemotherapy: With any of these conditions, the hormone “estrogen” is not made in normal amounts by the body. Birth control pills may be prescribed to replace estrogen, which helps to regulate the menstrual cycle. For girls whose menstrual periods are irregular (too few - or not at all), birth control pills can help to regulate the menstrual cycle to every 28 days and provide the body with normal amounts of estrogen. Normal estrogen levels are important for healthy bones.
Menstrual Cramps: When over-the-counter medications don't help with severe cramps, birth control pills may be the solution because they prevent ovulation and lighten periods.
Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS): Symptoms of PMS such as mood swings, breast soreness, and bloating, along with acne can occur up to 2 weeks before a young women's period. Birth control pills may be prescribed to stop ovulation and keep hormone levels balanced. Symptoms may improve, particularly when oral contraceptive pills are prescribed continuously.
Heavy Menstrual Periods: Birth control pills can reduce the amount and length of menstrual bleeding.
Acne: For moderate to severe acne, which over-the-counter and prescription medications haven't cured, birth control pills may be prescribed. The hormones in the Pill can help stop acne from forming. Be patient though, since it takes several months for birth control pills to work.
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill
The pill is a legal prescribed drug that helps relieve a number of hormonal conditions in women. It also prevents unwanted pregnancies. You cannot separate the two uses, and, I don't believe you or anyone needs to go poking a nose into WHICH reason a woman has for using the pill.
From what you stated, it sounds like you wish to punish women for having nonprocreative sex by disallowing the pill to be covered by private insurance companies.
Your tax dollars aren't involved. Why do you care?
BTW, 5ft3, there are other conditions women suffer from during the time she is fertile. For example, during the time she's receiving chemo therapy.
ReplyDeleteWould you be against a woman using the pill to prevent a pregnancy while she's undergoing such a regime? Would you tell that woman she should not have sex while she's undergoing chemo?
Planning a family when a woman and her partner are ready for it is a responsible and sensible thing to do.
It's real easy Jo Jo, if the pill is for medical needs, it should be paid for, the same as any medical condition. Using the pill solely for preventing pregnancy for convenience is an elective drug and should be paid for by the individual wanting it, not NEEDING it.
ReplyDeleteQuestion, if I WANT bigger boobs should my insurance company be forced to pay for my elective plastic surgery?
ReplyDeleteThen good, Bethy Wethy, you agree. The pill should be covered by insurance.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Not if used only for preventing pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteAnd how will anyone know the purpose, since the pill can be used for medical conditions and for contraception?
ReplyDeleteWould you have every woman submit herself to an inquisition to determine what medical reason she has for taking the pill before allowing insurance coverage?
There is no way to tell, unless each woman is questioned, since the pill can be used for both.
The doctor prescribing it knows already the reason a woman is taking it! Come on, you aren't that stupid Jo Jo.
ReplyDeleteShaw: "I have no idea what the point of the post is."
ReplyDeleteI don't provide Cliffs Notes to my humor but the Point and I do have one is this: since liberals already want the government involved in the bedroom by passing laws mandating insurance companies now provide free contraceptives to women the gov't is already involving itself with the sex act so why not go the whole nine yards? The Left operates through Force, feminists were the ones behind this coercive policy and a free-market would simply say take your case to every individual insurance company but don't coerce them. Got it now Shaw?
Shaw seriously misframes the issue as do most liberals:
ReplyDelete"It's only sexually repressed conservative men..."
Nothing to do with this but everything to do with the Power of the Government. Last I checked Newt was not the least bit sexually repressed.
"People need to come to terms with the fact that we humans have sex"
Came to terms with it a long long time ago and as such Gov't needs to get out of the Bedroom by not telling insurance companies they have to cover birth control pills and other contraceptives. You're making it into an anti-sex issue and it's not but you are against the free-markets here.
soapie: "Your arguments have become tired and stale Beth."
Soapie as usual going after conservatives again and going easy on the liberals.
Beth wrote: "The doctor prescribing it knows already the reason a woman is taking it! Come on, you aren't that stupid Jo Jo."
ReplyDeleteBeth, the doctor isn't the insurance company. Got that? You said that you do not approve of insurance coverage for contraceptives. I reminded you that "the pill" covers both female medical conditions AND contraception.
Since you would NOT allow coverage for contraception, I asked how one is to know.
You seem to imply by your silly answer that the doctor needs to report the reason for the prescription to whom? The insurance company or the sex police?
You seem not to be able to grasp that point.
So long as conservatives are okay with state-sanctioned rape, they should remain quiet about a woman's access to insurance coverage for the pill.
ReplyDeleteA doctor telling the insurance company what a prescription is for is not being the sex police, it is simply telling them what the patient is using it for so as to determine its eligibility, sheesh!
ReplyDeleteShaw is still stuck up on this phantom menace of the Sex Police but at any rate a big-time CORRECTION is called for where she tells Beth,
ReplyDelete"Since you would NOT allow coverage for contraception"
She never said that, that'd be up to the insurance company and not the government. Personally speaking if she were in charge of an insurance company she wouldn't cover it but that's a far cry from not allowing others to cover it. All she is saying is you should not FORCE an insurance company to pay for contraception. Now as for tax dollars not paying for birth-control pills but au contraire if Planned Parenthood gets taxpayer subsidies then of course part of the taxpayers' money is going for birth control.
Speaking for myself now and I thought about this yesterday as the subject of Viagra being paid for by insurance was brought up if it were my insurance company and I were in charge of setting the policy I wouldn't cover it and here's why. It's a pragmatic consideration to keep costs down based on the fact that having sex is not necessary to your health or even your continued existence. It has absolutely nothing to do with being Anti-Sex, simply looking at it as objectively as I can from a business angle. Now you can agree or disagree with that POV but anyone holding such a view shouldn't be vilified and I'm just talking in a general sense here not about me since I wasn't vilified here. Just talking about how if you take a certain political position especially if it involves in any way the sex act people take it out of context, start painting with a broad brush and that's the problem with Politics these days as it's always been.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this issue is far larger than contraception (which should not be an issue at all).
ReplyDeleteThis will also allow employers, on 'religious' grounds, to deny insurance coverage for blood transfusions, heart valve replacements, insulin, psychological/psychiatric services, or really any treatment at all.
Of course, none of that matters, does it? Because it's all about women, and what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
Dragging everyone else into your bedroom by asking them, nay enforcing them to pay for the things you need to prevent conception, that's the liberal mindset in a nutshell so why not the toys 'n' gadgetz too?
ReplyDeleteLike I said. This law is about far more than contraception. You'd like perhaps to paint it into some kind of liberal obsession with sex (amazing you can say that with a straight face given Rick Santorum and the fact that the Republicans have spent all their time focusing on passing anti-abortion and other social matters bills rather than focusing on the economy like they swore they were going to if they could just get elected), but it's a much larger issue than that. Like I said.. companies will be free to refuse their employees coverage for things like insulin, porcine heart valves, psychiatric care, you name it. Of course, none of this matters, right? As long as we can make sure women are pushed down just a little bit further.
ReplyDeleteLiberals do have an obsession with sex. Ahmadinejad may get the Bomb soon, gas prices keep going up and the liberals are talking about what Beth calls a fabricated social issue. Those health concerns you mentioned, having sex is an elective act if you will and not having sex will not cause you to die whereas you may well need a blood transfusion or insulin. False analogy.
ReplyDeleteFalse analogy nothing. The law would allow employers to refuse any and all things for insurance coverage if it offended their moral sensibilities.
ReplyDeleteThus, Muslim owned companies could refuse coverage for porcine insulin and porcine heart valves, based on their religious prohibitions on pork.
Jehovah's Witness owned companies could refuse coverage for blood transfusions and blood products, as their religion doesn't allow them.
Scientologist-owned companies could refuse coverage for psychiatric and psychological services, since they don't believe in such things.
And any other number of religious groups could deny whatever they like, based on their 'religious convictions'.
These denials of coverage are based on the same logic as the Catholic/Christian refusal to cover contraception: it conflicts with their religious beliefs. There is no 'medically necessary' provision. It's at the employer's discretion, whatever they'd like to claim conflicts with their religious beliefs.
But that's okay, right? As long as we make sure contraception isn't covered.
Actually it is a false analogy because contraception to prevent a conception or put another way the sex act itself is not medically necessary so that should be up to an insurance company to decide if they want to cover birth-control pills and whatnot, free market remember? From time to time if you read the paper some of the issues you mention pop up and there have been situations in case law where the courts have ruled against the religious institution or parents because they tried to deny necessary medical interventions for their children on religious grounds. Again sex is an elective freely-chosen act that is not medically necessary, highly pleasurable yes and nothing wrong with it but leave other people and their wallets and pocketbooks out of it.
ReplyDelete