Given the domination of men in the political/corporate world...

Is it any surprise Viagra is covered by insurance and not female birth control? Women pay 35% more for health insurance than men do; however, on average they make only 77% the wages men make in comparable positions.

In essence, gender equality is illusory. The current spat between the patriarchy known as the Catholic Church and the government shows just how little our society values and respects the female sex.

 

They tend to live longer, most of them having driven their husbands into an early grave.

 

You're making a great point!!

 

They pay 35% more for the same policy than a man of the same age and with a similar medical history.

 

I never really thought about it from this perspective, but this is a great point.

Granted, male chauvinism and Catholicism go together like Congress and lobbyists.

 

Women tend to need more care than men on average. Especially when you factor in the cost of pregnancy.

 

Because they live longer and are also claimants. Consequently, the insurance company stands to pay out over a longer period on a female claim than a male one.

 

Completey incorrect.

Viagra and other erectile disfunction medicines are routinely covered by insurance because they are medicines used to correct medical PROBLEMS.

Birth control does not do that. It is used to prevent natural processes from occurring.

A woman being fertile is not a "medical problem" to be corrected.

 

You're making three audacious claims here. I know for a fact the first one is false: most insurance packages for women do cover birth control. I'd like to see your sources for the other two.

 

Funny, since when is "getting old and not performing sexually" a medical problem? You don't have a God-given right to have sex. Isn't that what you're saying on the other thread?

 

What makes you think that men are not able to perform sexually due to age?

You need to actually do some research into the subjects you babble about.

 

This is true to an extent, but a lot of plans now consider pregnancy to be an "emergency condition."

You often have to take out an additional policy or do some negotiating to get coverage for delivering a birth (and the related post-natal care).

 

Well, if that's the reasoning, do most plans cover Provestra? (I'm asking because I've never looked into it.)

 

Most users of Viagra tend to be older. Obviously, it's not age by itself that is causing impotency, but there's a direct correlation.

 

Beats me.

Prove it.

At any rate, moderating some of the effects of age on people is generally considered treatment of a medical condition.

 

Birth control is used to solve a multitude of medical conditions as well, not just prevent pregnancy.

 

ED is a naturally occurring process in some men in which Viagra prevents from occurring.

 

Those are additional side effects.

They are not the primary purpose of birth control medications.

And you know that.

 

http://men.webmd.com/features/viagra-how-young-is-too-young

According to Pfizer, most Viagra users are in their early to mid-50s. That's not senior citizenship, but I'd still call that "older." It's over the hill, at least.

 

Many women who aren't currently sexually active use them exclusively to moderate things like menstrual cramps, irregular menstruation, PMS, and acne.

How can you say the primary purpose of birth control for these women is to prevent pregnancy?

 

Well, girls in their mid-teens can naturally get pregnant, but their use of birth control isn't a bad thing when considering most of them are going to have sex regardless of what their parents or religion thinks.

You could say this is preventing a natural process, but it's also preventing more welfare usage.

 

Turn in your man card, dude. The amount of estrogen dripping from this post is ridiculous.

I'd like to point something out, though.

I noticed you cited this often-regurgitated little talking point but (like most people) did not bother to explain why this is. Reasons such as women taking time off to have children and not being willing to work as many hours, etc., etc., etc.

You appear to be trying to create the silly illusion that women get paid less money for doing the same job. Which is of course ridiculous since that is against the law and if it were true, all it would take would be one simple class action lawsuit on behalf of the entire female work force to fix the problem.

 

I have to turn in my man card because I refuse to remain party to this blatant discrimination?

 

To you perhaps.

What are you 16?

 

People in their 50's are "older," regardless of the age of the individual making the assertion.