And we wonder why GM is broke….now they want YOU & ME, the lowly
taxpayer, to bail them out!!





GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra

By Joe Benton
ConsumerAffairs.com

Lifestyle drugs -- chiefly Viagra -- are costing General Motors $17
million dollars a year and the cost is passed along to car, truck and
SUV consumers. The blue pill is covered under GM's labor agreement
with United Auto Workers, as well as benefit plans for salaried
employees.

GM executives estimate health care adds $1,500 to the price of each
vehicle but they do not break out how much of the premium is caused by
erectile dysfunction expenses. GM provides health care for 1.1 million
employees, retirees and dependents and is the world's largest private
purchaser of Viagra.

GM recently raised the co-pay for erectile dysfunction drugs to $18
under a new agreement with the UAW and the company has also pared
benefits for salaried workers.

The automaker spends almost $5.6 billion each year on health care.
While lifestyle drugs are a small fraction of the total medical bill,
every health care expense is added into the price of every new vehicle
and is a drag on the struggling goliath's earnings.

Given the large number of aging autoworkers in the U.S., the
industry's Viagra tab and bill for other erectile dysfunction drugs is
certain to continue rising.

Neither Ford nor Chrysler will disclose the amount spent on erectile
dysfunction drugs.

While many government and company health plans have eliminated
impotence drugs from coverage plans, GM has more than two retirees for
every active worker on its rolls and must negotiate eliminating the
drugs from the union health plan with the UAW.

Mr. Bill wrote:
> And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, the lowly
> taxpayer, to bail them out!!

> GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra

Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
insurance company.

nancy

On Nov 12, 9:44*am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> Mr. Bill wrote:
> > And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, *the lowly
> > taxpayer, to bail them out!!
> > GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
>
> Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
> a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
> insurance company.
>
> nancy

Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
vitro fertilization treatments. I really resent that. As far as I'm
concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing, and in vitro (or other
medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
surgery.

Nancy2 wrote:
> On Nov 12, 9:44 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>>> And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, the lowly
>>> taxpayer, to bail them out!!
>>> GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
>> Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
>> a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
>> insurance company.
>>
>> nancy
>
> Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
> vitro fertilization treatments. I really resent that. As far as I'm
> concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing, and in vitro (or other
> medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
> surgery.
>
>
My sentiments exactly.

In article
>,
Nancy2 > wrote:

> On Nov 12, 9:44*am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> > Mr. Bill wrote:
> > > And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, *the lowly
> > > taxpayer, to bail them out!!
> > > GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
> >
> > Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
> > a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
> > insurance company.
> >
> > nancy
>
> Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
> vitro fertilization treatments. I really resent that. As far as I'm
> concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing, and in vitro (or other
> medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
> surgery.

Childless couples would not agree with that... Sorry.
--
Peace! Om

"Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them." -- Dalai Lama

Nancy2 wrote:

> On Nov 12, 9:44 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>>Mr. Bill wrote:
>>
>>>And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, the lowly
>>>taxpayer, to bail them out!!
>>>GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
>>
>>Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
>>a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
>>insurance company.
>>
>>nancy
>
>
> Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
> vitro fertilization treatments. I really resent that. As far as I'm
> concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing, and in vitro (or other
> medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
> surgery.


Really? You equate a nose job with getting pregnant? The failure of a
basic human biological function (reproduction) shouldn't be covered by
health insurance?

I myself have a much bigger issue with covering lung disease in anybody
who has ever inhaled. Or heart disease in anybody with a fat ass. Or
psych care for someone who is unable/unwilling to withdraw from a toxic
environment. Or cholesterol meds for somebody who won't adjust their
diet and exercise.

"Much bigger" than zero still isn't much more than zero. Who gets to
draw the line? You? Me? Be careful how you answer.

Omelet wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Nancy2 > wrote:
>
>> On Nov 12, 9:44 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>>>> And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, the lowly
>>>> taxpayer, to bail them out!!
>>>> GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
>>>
>>> Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
>>> a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
>>> insurance company.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>
>> Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
>> vitro fertilization treatments. I really resent that. As far as I'm
>> concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing, and in vitro (or other
>> medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
>> surgery.
>
> Childless couples would not agree with that... Sorry.

Having children doesn't guarantee they would be able to afford them. Hence,
the Welfare system.

Jill

Nancy2 wrote:
> On Nov 12, 9:44 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>>> And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, the lowly
>>> taxpayer, to bail them out!!
>>> GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
>>
>> Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
>> a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
>> insurance company.

> Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
> vitro fertilization treatments. I really resent that. As far as I'm
> concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing,

I completely fail to see why that would be covered as a
medical expense. Goes to show, it was a huge fight to have
birth control pills covered, but Viagra? No problem. Draw
your own conclusion.

>and in vitro (or other
> medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
> surgery.

It does seem like an expense you'd have to pay for yourself
if you decide to do it, as plastic surgery. Voluntary, in other
words.

nancy

Kathleen wrote:
> Nancy2 wrote:
>
>> On Nov 12, 9:44 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>
>>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, the lowly
>>>> taxpayer, to bail them out!!
>>>> GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
>>>
>>> Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
>>> a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
>>> insurance company.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>
>>
>> Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
>> vitro fertilization treatments. I really resent that. As far as I'm
>> concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing, and in vitro (or other
>> medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
>> surgery.
>
>
> Really? You equate a nose job with getting pregnant?

I wouldn't equate it but let's face it, guys, at some point in life you
simply lose the ability to get a hard dick. Viagra is definitely an ego
thing. Most of us women just wish you'd keep it in your pants after age 70.

Jill

On Nov 12, 12:20*pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > Nancy2 > wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 12, 9:44 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> >>> Mr. Bill wrote:
> >>>> And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, the lowly
> >>>> taxpayer, to bail them out!!
> >>>> GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
>
> >>> Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
> >>> a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
> >>> insurance company.
>
> >>> nancy
>
> >> Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
> >> vitro fertilization treatments. *I really resent that. As far as I'm
> >> concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing, and in vitro (or other
> >> medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
> >> surgery.
>
> > Childless couples would not agree with that... * Sorry.
>
> Having children doesn't guarantee they would be able to afford them. *Hence,
> the Welfare system.
>
> Jill

True, but we're talking about employed union workers health benefits,
not someone in your situation.

maxine in ri

maxine in ri wrote:
> On Nov 12, 12:20 pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>> Omelet wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> Nancy2 > wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 12, 9:44 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>>>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>>>>>> And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, the lowly
>>>>>> taxpayer, to bail them out!!
>>>>>> GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
>>
>>>>> Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
>>>>> a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
>>>>> insurance company.
>>
>>>>> nancy
>>
>>>> Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
>>>> vitro fertilization treatments. I really resent that. As far as I'm
>>>> concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing, and in vitro (or other
>>>> medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
>>>> surgery.
>>
>>> Childless couples would not agree with that... Sorry.
>>
>> Having children doesn't guarantee they would be able to afford them.
>> Hence, the Welfare system.
>>
>> Jill
>
> True, but we're talking about employed union workers health benefits,
> not someone in your situation.
>
> maxine in ri

Unions (or any insurance program) shouldn't pay for any of it. If they
won't pay for birth control they certainly shouldn't pay for Viagra.
Someone "in my situation" is too old to have children.

MareCat wrote:

> Adoption can be very expensive, too.


And you can end up with a kid like Joan Crawford had...

:-|

--
Best
Greg

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:17:42 -0600, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>And you can end up with a kid like Joan Crawford had...

Let's not go down that two way street.

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> MareCat wrote:
>
>
>>Adoption can be very expensive, too.
>
>
>
> And you can end up with a kid like Joan Crawford had...
>
> :-|
>

Or the kid end up with a "Joan Crawford"....
--
JL

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> MareCat wrote:
>
>
>> Adoption can be very expensive, too.
>
>
>
> And you can end up with a kid like Joan Crawford had...
>
> :-|
>

Nobody gets any guarantees. But, generally speaking, it's easier to
deal with a familiar brand of crazy than something that's completely
unprecedented in your family. It's like:

"Argh! He's just like his Uncle James!"

-vs-

"WTF is wrong with this child? Is she going to levitate with her head
on backwards next?"

On Nov 12, 11:12*am, Omelet > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Nancy2 > wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 9:44*am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> > > Mr. Bill wrote:
> > > > And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, *the lowly
> > > > taxpayer, to bail them out!!
> > > > GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
>
> > > Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
> > > a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
> > > insurance company.
>
> > > nancy
>
> > Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
> > vitro fertilization treatments. *I really resent that. As far as I'm
> > concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing, and in vitro (or other
> > medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
> > surgery.
>
> Childless couples would not agree with that... * Sorry.
> --
> Peace! Om
>
> "Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them." -- Dalai Lama- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There are other options for childless couples. Infertility is not
"ill health," especially since pregnancy is not considered "ill
health."

N.

On Nov 12, 11:26*am, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> Kathleen wrote:
> > Nancy2 wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 12, 9:44 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
> >>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>
> >>>> And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, *the lowly
> >>>> taxpayer, to bail them out!!
> >>>> GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
>
> >>> Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
> >>> a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
> >>> insurance company.
>
> >>> nancy
>
> >> Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
> >> vitro fertilization treatments. *I really resent that. As far as I'm
> >> concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing, and in vitro (or other
> >> medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
> >> surgery.
>
> > Really? *You equate a nose job with getting pregnant?
>
> I wouldn't equate it but let's face it, guys, at some point in life you
> simply lose the ability to get a hard dick. *Viagra is definitely an ego
> thing. *Most of us women just wish you'd keep it in your pants after age 70.
>
> Jill- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Too funny. ;-)

N.

> Nope, nothing fun at all about that. And when your body doesn't perform very
> basic biological functions, and you yearn for a child of your own,
> >
>

Since overpopulation is such a huge problem, why not let health
insurance pay for counseling for those couples who are "yearning" for
their own child, so they can get over that idea that they must
reproduce in order to be fulfilled. (Yeah, I'm playing devil's
advocate here.)

N.

Joseph Littleshoes wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> > MareCat wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Adoption can be very expensive, too.
> >
> >
> >
> > And you can end up with a kid like Joan Crawford had...
> >
> > :-|
> >
>
> Or the kid end up with a "Joan Crawford"....


Well, on the "bright side" Joan actually sent one kid *back* that she had
adopted...

;-)


--
Best
Greg

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> Nancy2 wrote:

> > On Nov 12, 9:44 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

> >> Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
> >> a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
> >> insurance company.
>
> > Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
> > vitro fertilization treatments. I really resent that. As far as I'm
> > concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing,
>
> I completely fail to see why that would be covered as a
> medical expense. Goes to show, it was a huge fight to have
> birth control pills covered, but Viagra? No problem. Draw
> your own conclusion.

My conclusion is that we are working from a different set of "facts".
Birth control pills weren't covered before 1960 because they hadn't been
invented yet. As I remember, there was a terrible fight after that with
no connection to medical issues. People thought that if girls weren't
given the pill, then they wouldn't have sex. Bad idea. I don't think
it took that long before birth control pills were widely available.
Anybody with little money and no medical insurance could go to Planned
Parenthood and get free birth control pills. I believe our first
experience with this was in the early 70's. My memory about Viagra is
also different. It was a huge battle to get insurance coverage for
Viagra. I don't know if it is covered fully by every insurance company
yet.

> >and in vitro (or other
> > medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
> > surgery.

I don't think it's on par with breast enhancement or a tummy tuck, but
some of it is just too darned expensive. My HMO doesn't fully cover it.
They cover half of certain things. I don't know what since it isn't
something we need personally. My HMO does cosmetic surgery, but the
patient pays the full cost.

> It does seem like an expense you'd have to pay for yourself
> if you decide to do it, as plastic surgery. Voluntary, in other
> words.

My father had plastic surgery. I talked to the surgeon. She basically
said if he hadn't had it done within two months, he would have died.
Not in two months, but whenever and wherever the cancer spread. He had
two surgeries, a week apart, one to remove the cancer, and then a week
later when the lab verified that she had got it all, another to graft
some skin over the surgery.

A little girl in my church was born with a cleft palate. I guess that's
plastic surgery. I guess it's voluntary, also. When I was a kid,
people who were born with a cleft palate just lived with it, their whole
lives. I imagine that limited their job prospects. I imagine that
reduced self-confidence. I worked with a woman with a cleft palate. It
was a hard life. She had three little kids, no job skills and her
husband had committed suicide.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote:


> Unions (or any insurance program) shouldn't pay for any of it. If they
> won't pay for birth control they certainly shouldn't pay for Viagra.

Is there, in fact, any insurance program in existence in any
industrialized nation in the world that doesn't cover birth control
pills, much less any that pay for Viagra but *not* birth control pills?
I say NO to both.

> Someone "in my situation" is too old to have children.

That's precisely why some women have in vitro fertilization. A woman at
church camp had it. The doctors said her eggs were too old (she was
only 43), so she "borrowed" some from her niece, and had twins. Quite
lovely boys, but hellions!

Of course, I don't know your situation.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:

> Is there, in fact, any insurance program in existence in any
> industrialized nation in the world that doesn't cover birth control
> pills,

I can't speak for now, but they certainly weren't covered
when I was on them.

How old is Viagra? Been around for how many years?
Looks like about 10 years. It's been covered for some
time now, maybe since the beginning.

nancy

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
>
>> Unions (or any insurance program) shouldn't pay for any of it. If
>> they won't pay for birth control they certainly shouldn't pay for
>> Viagra.
>
> Is there, in fact, any insurance program in existence in any
> industrialized nation in the world that doesn't cover birth control
> pills, much less any that pay for Viagra but *not* birth control
> pills? I say NO to both.
>
>> Someone "in my situation" is too old to have children.
>
> That's precisely why some women have in vitro fertilization. A woman
> at church camp had it. The doctors said her eggs were too old (she
> was only 43), so she "borrowed" some from her niece, and had twins.
> Quite lovely boys, but hellions!
>
My former manager at work had prostate cancer so they did the in vitro
thing. They wound up with triplets

Jill

In article >,
Omelet > wrote:

> In article >,
> Kathleen > wrote:

[snip of stuff about IVF]

> > I've got friends who lived the nightmare and I wouldn't wish it on my
> > worst enemy. And before you recommend adoption, understand that while
> > approaching infertility treatment as a medical issue is painful and
> > invasive, the adoption route, and laying bare your entire life is just
> > as bad as laying back, putting your heels in the stirrups and spreading
> > your knees.
>
> Adoption here in the US also runs around 50K per kid in legal fees.

And there's the waiting. We had a couple at church with two little
adopted boys. When they first joined the church, the older one was
theirs. A long time after they joined the church, I found out they were
upset. Little Jesse was two years old, and the biological mother had
one more chance to make her decision to give up her child. After two
years? The little kid had lived with his adopted parents for two years,
he knew nothing else, and the mother still had the right to take back
her child. The biological mother finally signed off for the last time,
and the adopted parents had a big party.

> It's why a lot of people that finally decide to adopt go for foreign
> kids. I had a pair of co-workers that were able to adopt a Russian
> child for only around 10K in legal fees. They are the ones that told me
> about the cost.
>
> And that was about 15 years ago.

Children from China are popular now. Female children are not valued
there, and there are birth limits. Some children just get dropped off
at the orphanage. A couple from church camp have adopted two wonderful
kids from Korea. You can adopt a baby from Korea, whereas I don't think
China will let kids go until they are two.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Nancy2" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Nope, nothing fun at all about that. And when your body doesn't perform
>> very
>> basic biological functions, and you yearn for a child of your own,
>> >
>>
>
> Since overpopulation is such a huge problem, why not let health
> insurance pay for counseling for those couples who are "yearning" for
> their own child, so they can get over that idea that they must
> reproduce in order to be fulfilled. (Yeah, I'm playing devil's
> advocate here.)

Since I belong to a number of IF support groups, I know a LOT of people who
have struggled with infertility (both online and in RL). The vast majority
of IF couples that I have known just wanted to become parents--through
whatever means. Attempting to have biological children is naturally the
first path to take, and in many/most cases (including ours), is the easiest
(lots of people are able to conceive after just a little "help"). Some
couples do try for years and years for a biological child, and yeah, they
spend mucho bucks. Where insurance companies should draw the line regarding
coverage for IF treatments I honestly don't know.

Mary

On Wed 12 Nov 2008 09:26:37a, Nancy2 told us...

> On Nov 12, 9:44*am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>> > And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, *the lowly
>> > taxpayer, to bail them out!!
>> > GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
>>
>> Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
>> a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
>> insurance company.
>>
>> nancy
>
> Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
> vitro fertilization treatments. I really resent that. As far as I'm
> concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing, and in vitro (or other
> medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
> surgery.

IMHO, if couples were meant to have children, then they would be able to
have them without the intervention of “rocket science”. If you were a man,
you might not consider Viagra an ego thing. Impotence is a serious
condition that goes beyond ego. Impotence absolutely prevents the sexual
act for a male, while females are not so afflicted. Having said that, I’m
not suggesting that insurance should cover any of it.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)

************************************************** **********************
Date: Wednesday, 11(XI)/12(XII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till U.S. Thanksgiving Day
2wks 5hrs 28mins
************************************************** **********************
All Wood? Oh! AL Wood. I didn't see the missing 'L' at first.
************************************************** **********************

In article
>,
Nancy2 > wrote:

> On Nov 12, 11:12*am, Omelet > wrote:

> > Childless couples would not agree with that... * Sorry.

> There are other options for childless couples. Infertility is not
> "ill health," especially since pregnancy is not considered "ill
> health."

I'm having trouble with the logic here. Is pregnancy considered good
health? Is lack of pregancy considered ill health? Isn't infertility a
lack of pregnancy?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Omelet > fnord newsmpomelet-015664.11123912112008
@news.giganews.com:

> In article
> >,
> Nancy2 > wrote:
>
>> On Nov 12, 9:44*am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>> > Mr. Bill wrote:
>> > > And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, *the lowly
>> > > taxpayer, to bail them out!!
>> > > GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
>> >
>> > Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
>> > a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
>> > insurance company.
>> >
>> > nancy
>>
>> Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
>> vitro fertilization treatments. I really resent that. As far as I'm
>> concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing, and in vitro (or other
>> medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
>> surgery.
>
> Childless couples would not agree with that... Sorry.

I'm sure some would (give that many are childless by choice)

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

Dan Abel > fnord news:dabel-C2F29E.14375312112008@c-61-
68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:

> In article >,
> "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
>
>> Unions (or any insurance program) shouldn't pay for any of it. If
they
>> won't pay for birth control they certainly shouldn't pay for Viagra.
>
> Is there, in fact, any insurance program in existence in any
> industrialized nation in the world that doesn't cover birth control
> pills, much less any that pay for Viagra but *not* birth control
pills?
> I say NO to both.
>

I used to have insurance that would pay for the costs of childbirth at
near 100%, but would not cover birth control pills.



--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

Saerah Gray wrote:
> Dan Abel > fnord

>> Is there, in fact, any insurance program in existence in any
>> industrialized nation in the world that doesn't cover birth control
>> pills, much less any that pay for Viagra but *not* birth control
>> pills? I say NO to both.
>>
>
> I used to have insurance that would pay for the costs of childbirth at
> near 100%, but would not cover birth control pills.

There was always griping that birth control wasn't covered,
but when Viagra came along and insurance companies
covered that without blinking an eye, it seemed, that's when
I saw the griping really get heated.

I don't know what the situation is anymore, things change.

nancy

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> Saerah Gray wrote:
> > Dan Abel > fnord
>
> >> Is there, in fact, any insurance program in existence in any
> >> industrialized nation in the world that doesn't cover birth control
> >> pills, much less any that pay for Viagra but *not* birth control
> >> pills? I say NO to both.
> >>
> >
> > I used to have insurance that would pay for the costs of childbirth at
> > near 100%, but would not cover birth control pills.
>
> There was always griping that birth control wasn't covered,
> but when Viagra came along and insurance companies
> covered that without blinking an eye, it seemed, that's when
> I saw the griping really get heated.
>
> I don't know what the situation is anymore, things change.

I guess I don't know what I'm talking about. I did a quick google, and
was surprised to see so many claims about companies paying for Viagra
and not birth control pills. That sounds not only wrong, but really
stupid.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Wed 12 Nov 2008 08:07:16p, Dan Abel told us...

> In article >,
> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>> Saerah Gray wrote:
>> > Dan Abel > fnord
>>
>> >> Is there, in fact, any insurance program in existence in any
>> >> industrialized nation in the world that doesn't cover birth control
>> >> pills, much less any that pay for Viagra but *not* birth control
>> >> pills? I say NO to both.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I used to have insurance that would pay for the costs of childbirth at
>> > near 100%, but would not cover birth control pills.
>>
>> There was always griping that birth control wasn't covered,
>> but when Viagra came along and insurance companies
>> covered that without blinking an eye, it seemed, that's when
>> I saw the griping really get heated.
>>
>> I don't know what the situation is anymore, things change.
>
> I guess I don't know what I'm talking about. I did a quick google, and
> was surprised to see so many claims about companies paying for Viagra
> and not birth control pills. That sounds not only wrong, but really
> stupid.
>

I can't speak about birth control medications, but I know for a fact that
when Viagra and other similar products were first introduced, they were not
covered by any Insurance company. Even now, with many insurance companies,
they are rated at the very highest co-pay of any usual medications, e.g.,
Lipitor, Plavix, etc. It was several years before any insurance companies
began covering any portion of the prices charged for Viagara. Viagara is
also approved for use by women.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)

************************************************** **********************
Date: Wednesday, 11(XI)/12(XII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till U.S. Thanksgiving Day
2wks 3hrs 37mins
************************************************** **********************
This tagl ineh asto oman yfou rlet terw ords.
************************************************** **********************

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> I can't speak about birth control medications, but I know for a fact
> that when Viagra and other similar products were first introduced,
> they were not covered by any Insurance company. Even now, with many
> insurance companies, they are rated at the very highest co-pay of any
> usual medications, e.g., Lipitor, Plavix, etc. It was several years
> before any insurance companies began covering any portion of the
> prices charged for Viagara. Viagara is also approved for use by
> women.

Frankly, I don't think either should be covered excepting some
special circumstance, but then I opt for high deductibles
as I view insurance as for big trouble, not day to day expenses.

nancy

On Wed 12 Nov 2008 09:08:11p, Nancy Young told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> I can't speak about birth control medications, but I know for a fact
>> that when Viagra and other similar products were first introduced,
>> they were not covered by any Insurance company. Even now, with many
>> insurance companies, they are rated at the very highest co-pay of any
>> usual medications, e.g., Lipitor, Plavix, etc. It was several years
>> before any insurance companies began covering any portion of the
>> prices charged for Viagara. Viagara is also approved for use by
>> women.
>
> Frankly, I don't think either should be covered excepting some
> special circumstance, but then I opt for high deductibles
> as I view insurance as for big trouble, not day to day expenses.
>
> nancy
>

If you're taking numerous medications that add up to hundreds if not a
thousand or more dollars a month, it's virtually impossible not to use your
insurance prescription plan. That's not "big trouble" as would be a major
surgery, but if lack of the medications put you in a life threatening
situation, I don't have a problem with it.

Likewise, when a quarterly office visit costs, say $180, it would not be
affordable for me unless I paid my insurance $30 co-pay instead. If I
didn't, I couldn't afford to go at all. I pay a good portion of my
insurance premium myself. I think it would be foolish not to use it.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)

************************************************** **********************
Date: Wednesday, 11(XI)/12(XII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till U.S. Thanksgiving Day
2wks 2hrs 37mins
************************************************** **********************
Immortality is my short-term goal.
************************************************** **********************

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Wed 12 Nov 2008 09:08:11p, Nancy Young told us...

>> Frankly, I don't think either should be covered excepting some
>> special circumstance, but then I opt for high deductibles
>> as I view insurance as for big trouble, not day to day expenses.

> If you're taking numerous medications that add up to hundreds if not a
> thousand or more dollars a month, it's virtually impossible not to
> use your insurance prescription plan.

Everyone has different insurance needs, but I wouldn't be
interesting in submitting forms to get Viagra covered, or
birth control. If you need very expensive medication, you're
better off getting a lower deductible.

> That's not "big trouble" as
> would be a major surgery, but if lack of the medications put you in a
> life threatening situation, I don't have a problem with it.
>
> Likewise, when a quarterly office visit costs, say $180, it would not
> be affordable for me unless I paid my insurance $30 co-pay instead.
> If I didn't, I couldn't afford to go at all. I pay a good portion of
> my insurance premium myself. I think it would be foolish not to use
> it.

The premiums, in my experience, I'm not talking about everyone's
or yours, were way higher to have a lower deductible. If I pay a
couple thousand less in premiums, that covers a lot of office
visits and medication, for me, and no bothering with filing every
time I saw a doctor.

nancy

On Wed 12 Nov 2008 09:58:43p, Nancy Young told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Wed 12 Nov 2008 09:08:11p, Nancy Young told us...
>
>>> Frankly, I don't think either should be covered excepting some
>>> special circumstance, but then I opt for high deductibles
>>> as I view insurance as for big trouble, not day to day expenses.
>
>> If you're taking numerous medications that add up to hundreds if not a
>> thousand or more dollars a month, it's virtually impossible not to
>> use your insurance prescription plan.
>
> Everyone has different insurance needs, but I wouldn't be
> interesting in submitting forms to get Viagra covered, or
> birth control. If you need very expensive medication, you're
> better off getting a lower deductible.

For me this is not a choice, since it is established by the company I work
for the contract they have with the insurer.

>> That's not "big trouble" as
>> would be a major surgery, but if lack of the medications put you in a
>> life threatening situation, I don't have a problem with it.
>>
>> Likewise, when a quarterly office visit costs, say $180, it would not
>> be affordable for me unless I paid my insurance $30 co-pay instead.
>> If I didn't, I couldn't afford to go at all. I pay a good portion of
>> my insurance premium myself. I think it would be foolish not to use
>> it.
>
> The premiums, in my experience, I'm not talking about everyone's
> or yours, were way higher to have a lower deductible. If I pay a
> couple thousand less in premiums, that covers a lot of office
> visits and medication, for me, and no bothering with filing every
> time I saw a doctor.

I don’t have to file any of my own claims. They are filed directly with
the insurance company by any doctor I visit. Visits and prescriptions only
involve a co-pay on my part.

As you said, everyone’s situation is different.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Wednesday, 11(XI)/12(XII)/08(MMVIII)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till U.S. Thanksgiving Day
2wks 2hrs 22mins 26secs
************************************************** **********************
The reason people get lost in thought is because it is, to many,
rather unfamiliar territory.
************************************************** **********************

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:


> The premiums, in my experience, I'm not talking about everyone's
> or yours, were way higher to have a lower deductible. If I pay a
> couple thousand less in premiums, that covers a lot of office
> visits and medication, for me, and no bothering with filing every
> time I saw a doctor.

I do like my HMO. My retirement system pays the whole premium. They've
got a deal set up with the HMO. I only get the one plan with them.
There are other health insurance options, with other providers. I was
paying US$5 a month before, but that covered three of us. My daughter
was dropped due to age (she now has the same HMO, but an individual
plan). There is almost no paperwork. There are almost no claims.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article 7>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> It was several years before any insurance companies
> began covering any portion of the prices charged for Viagara. Viagara is
> also approved for use by women.

Viagra was originally developed for something entirely different. It
didn't work for that, but it was discovered that the men that it was
used on developed unexpected erections. OK, they'd sell it for that.

It was discovered that it had some other limited uses. The same company
sells it under another name for these other purposes, which are not
gender specific. The tablet is a different color, a different size
dose, and a different dosing schedule.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Mr.Bill wrote:

> GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra

Well, they can't just let a huge company like that peter out.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
>
>> Unions (or any insurance program) shouldn't pay for any of it. If they
>> won't pay for birth control they certainly shouldn't pay for Viagra.
>
> Is there, in fact, any insurance program in existence in any
> industrialized nation in the world that doesn't cover birth control
> pills, much less any that pay for Viagra but *not* birth control pills?
> I say NO to both.
>
>> Someone "in my situation" is too old to have children.
>
> That's precisely why some women have in vitro fertilization. A woman at
> church camp had it. The doctors said her eggs were too old (she was
> only 43), so she "borrowed" some from her niece, and had twins. Quite
> lovely boys, but hellions!

In the news: Some 56-year-old woman just had triplets, and they were her
grandchildren.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html