I think Wookie gave up alcohol for lent.

Actually, this is partially true. I didn't give it up entirely, as the last time I did, I got ridiculously sick on the Monday after Easter, as I guess my body completely forgot how to metabolize the stuff or something. But yeah, the alcohol has been cut way, way back, although this year I'm taking the Catholic tradition of Sunday being a feast day.

I was going to give up alcohol, but there was still some in the house, and I was like nahhh.

my coworkers are looking over at me because I can't stop giggling at this

Keanu Reeves and Paula Poundstone love child obv.

Wookie, you should probably also offer the chance to withdraw the statement in lieu of "cite or ban" imo.

Granted. No one has even offered to withdraw the statement, though. Most people doubled down on the sentiment.

I'm days behind in the thread and haven't read it all but this just made me laugh. I believe he's apologized twice to her at this point.

Seriously. Oh well, I can expect the first of a few angry PMs about moderator bias in about 8 hrs.

Oooh, plz recommend they make an ATF thread, we havent had one in a while.

Having observed this debate from the sidelines, I have several questions:

1. Why is it relevant that, under some policies, Viagra and similar drugs are covered but birth control is not? I understand that this policy entails that men are able to obtain drugs that they want more cheaply, while a drug that women want remains more expensive, but I don't understand why these two particular drugs are comparable, why it matters (is there some argument that this is unfair or even illegal sex discrimination?), or how answering this question sheds any light on the broader issuer (whether the government should require insurers to cover birth control). Surely it can be true that this disparity is unfair, yet also be preferable ex ante for neither to be covered.

2. Why are the non-contraceptive uses of birth control supposed to be especially salient, or even relevant? I understand that Fluke testified regarding some severe consequences that ensued from non-coverage of non-contraceptive uses of birth control, and I agree that the possibility of such disastrous risks is a good case for coverage in whatever class of cases in which it would be beneficial. But from what I understand, and what I believe most people understand, the debate is specifically about coverage for contraceptive uses of the drug, so arguments on this front miss the mark. And I think it is relatively clear that a very, very large percentage of the people who support government-mandated coverage for birth control do so specifically because they want coverage for contraception. In other words, someone who opposes government-mandated provision of the drug can simply concede any and all points relating to non-contraceptive uses of birth control without conceding their primary point.

3. Why does it matter whether any women were invited to speak at that congressional hearing a while back? Does anyone actually think that the general outlines of discourse on this issue, or that the overall policy outcome that will eventually be reached, will actually be affected by what was said at that hearing? If not, then the complaint seems to be about Congress' failure to maintain the appearance, not the substance, of listening to women's voices on issues that have substantial (or disproportionate) impacts on women. But shouldn't advocates, especially those who favor the notion that women have some unique understanding of these issues, be concerned with whether women are actually heard, whether they have some meaningful influence on the process, not with whether Congress appropriately panders to them? It seems to me like asking for tokenism.

1. There is no analog drug for men and women when it comes to the pill. Viagra seems like a good choice of drug to try and display the hypocrisy in the health insurance plans. If there was a specific male version of the pill that was covered by the female version was not it would be a better drug to bring up, but such a drug does not exist. It's a good political argument.

2. It's just another element of the discussion. Clearly it is not the primary consideration, but it does bring something to the conversation that most men don't know about. The pill is a drug that covers a lot of issues that women face, I think it is morally objectionable to force women, not men, to justify their medical treatments to their employer. Forcing them to make the justify their use the pill for X, Y, or Z reason to anyone is wrong.

3. I agree with your point in number three. But I think the whole thing makes more sense if you agree with the proposition that this whole thing is a charade. Republicans brought up the non-issue of contraceptive coverage as a means to bolster their image (not substance). So when they don't even get some token women on their panel the other side is able to bolster their image (again, no substance). Tokenism is a pretty important part of playing politics imo.

Man this guy is too much

+1. Also, I don't really see why anyone should get a chance to withdraw the statement at this point. Maybe Wookie should have given the first guy a chance, but at this point, hell no.

It's sad Limbaugh is relevant.

I'm curious what your standard for doing this is. Is it any false statement derogatory about someone that is ban-able without evidence?

You can tell how out of touch the "but rappers do it" argument was when they used Jay-Z as their point of reference. Republicans do not know about Odd Future apparently.

Why can't men get a year's supply of condoms paid for by their insurer with a small copay

By far the weirdest thing about this whole kerfuffle is that everyone's acting like free oral contraceptives are some huge giveaway to women.

I see no problem with insurance covering condoms.

If they cost $3000 a year they sure are a huge giveway, with a much more reasonably priced alternative. I never really thought about it until I heard that.

I'm probably the only one who thinks that insurance should offer some type of contraception but they should just give everyone free condoms and let people who can afford it buy their fancy pills

Really, you can see no problem whatsoever?

Well, let's start with one easy one. How many condoms per year would you expect insurance to cover?

Once you've considered that, think about this: Why doesn't insurance generally cover over-the-counter stuff like tylenol or band-aids?

I am not even why we call this program "insurance" anymore. It certainly is not when you throw in contraception.

Depends on the quality of the insurance. 20 condoms a month or 15, does not really matter. Could be 5 condoms a month with half off the next ten. I was going to put something about how the pill is a prescribed medicine so it's hard to analogize it with a condom. Probably should have put that in.

http://www.wageworks.com/employee/he...penses/fsa.htm

This one covers a lot of over the counter items. I am sure a lot of insurances cover a lot of different type of items. My experience is pretty limited. My best guess is that it all depends on cost of the product and how much better having that product covered makes your insurance plan look.