"Turner's bill says no physician can prescribe a drug to treat erectile dysfunction, until he or she:Queue up, gentlemen. Line forms to your left.
• Obtains a notarized affidavit from the patient in which at least one of the patient's sex partners certifies that the patient has experienced symptoms of erectile dysfunction in the previous 90 days.
• Refers the patient to a sexual therapist approved by the state medical board for an assessment of the possible causes of the patient's symptoms and obtains a written report in which the therapist concludes that the patient's symptoms are not psychological.
• Conducts a cardiac stress test and obtains a result, in writing, that says the patient's cardiac health is compatible with sexual activity.
• Notifies the patient in writing of the potential risks and complications associated with taking erectile dysfunction drugs.
• Declares in writing, under penalty of perjury, that the drugs are necessary to treat erectile dysfunction and describes the physician's medical rationale for issuing the prescription.
• Places all of the described documents in the patient's medical record."
* * *
58 comments:
I thought all these sexual problems had been settled when the pills became available...People could take what they wanted...Why is the government now getting into all of it...Hasn't the Supreme Court already decided that government is not suppose to be in anyone's bedroom???
This is just so crazy...... I think quid quo pro is just. BTW how is Goat's Hoof healing?
An emotional intravaginal ultrasound?
Does Medicare cover this? I don't want to be paying oldies to have sex!
If you have ED, pray about it. If God wants you doin' it, He'll intervene. It's all about His timing!
**I hope this is taken in the spirit in which was intended: What the fuck? This isn't what I meant by gender equality, all of us getting screwed by the Gov.
The coninuing war on men. When will it end. I think one of those brilliant Ohio pols should consider introducing a Government Adequate Penile Bloodflow Panel. This could be staffed by politcal appointees. Sort of like the Death Panel. You know, part of the Affordable Health Care plan. Every man over the age of, say, 65, would have to prove his need AND bring a willing partner to the hearing. They could also use the same panel to authorize a prescription for the "willing parners" headache medication.
Who voted for the Bozo promoting this waste of time, money, bill?
Waste of time and money? Probably. I mean, what are the chances of this becoming law? Pretty much zero.
It's different for us dirty-slutty-women-who-bit-the-apple-and-got-us-all-into-that-original-sin-mess. When we read appalling legislation that requires doctors to tell women that abortion causes breast cancer or mandates useless medical procedures on women, they are pretty likely to become law.
@Bill
"Who is this bozo..."
You should have clicked on the link at the top. Turner is trying to make a point by introducing that bill, for reasons Erin pointed out in her comment. Turner knows it won't pass. But then neither SHOULD similar leglisation directed toward women.
I quoted Bill wrong. That should be "Who voted for the Bozo...". Anyway, what I should have quoted instead is "The continuing war on men." From the women's perspective, it's merely self-defense.
Bill is immune to irony or sarcasm.
Another provision introduced elsewhere would require any men seeking an ED prescription to watch a video showing a doctor draining blood from one of those four-hour-erections the commercials warn about-turns out that wasn't just a marketing ploy.
I have also seen legislation proposed requiring a digital prostate exam prior to receiving an ED provision....
Turnabout is fair play, neanderthals...now think warm thoughts, this is gonna be coooold!
The Onion ran a headline, "New bill would require women to name the baby, paint the nursery before having an abortion". Genius...
MR
"a digital prostate exam", you mean there's an app for that?
http://www.nyu.edu/shc/medservices/oral.contraceptives.html
Looks like they don't like things to get hard in Ohio without government permission.
James Old Guy
READ THIS.
A lot of people have been bellyaching about what they do and do not want to pay for and what insurance companies shouldn't have to pay for and blah blah blah.
A lot of the righties don't think businesses should have to pay for a lot of things. A lot of the righties like a lot of deregulation on businesses. They all need to dig this:
Someone I know was all set to take a new job. Perfect fit, tons of qualifications and years and years of experience. All the t's were crossed and i's were dotted. Then the company decided to adopt a "no smokers" policy. This person was not hired because they had tested positive for tobacco somewhere during the interview process.
Yep. Using a legal product in their own home disqualified them for a job.
You can imagine how favorable it is insurance-wise to tell the actuaries that your entire staff is smoke free. Who wants to pay for smoking-related illness?
So you righties out there who enjoy a puff once in a while have been warned. You just might get what you've asked for.
As for all the hating on Michelle Obama for her dastardly "Let's Move" campaign, just wait until your boss tells you to step on a scale.
After all, who want to pay for obesity-related illnesses?
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."- Equal Rights Amendment. 3 states short of ratification in 1982. Time to bring it back?
It occurred to me this morning that perhaps we misread the OWS Movement here in the U.S. Perhaps Women's Rights will become our "Arab Spring."
RJ
I have actually owned a couple of businesses and actually hired people and actually made payroll, sometimes by borrowing money from myself. Do you really think, Erin, that an employer shouldn't have the right to make decisions about who he/she hires? Your acquaintance wasn't fired for smoking. Just wasn't hired. As an empolyer, I provided group health insurance which required higher premiums because it covered all of my employees regardless of their health. I could have just as easily paid each employee a fixed amount and told them they could buy their own insurance. You start messing with small business (under 50 employees) and telling them what they have to provide and who they have to hire, you'll never get unemployment under 8%. I don't know the percentage but the number of people who work for small companies is significant. Small business owners are under assault from this administration and even more so in some states like mine.
Yeah, RJ, you misread OWS. So did MSM. It probably does need dressing up a bit. But, the fake war on women won't cut it either.
A special colorectal ultrasound for Mr. Limbaugh.
JoJodancingbear--The doc pretty much says "time heals all wounds" so we wait (and wait and wait...)
Also: "Time wounds all heels"...but that's metaphysics and karma, not orthopedics...
MR
Do you really think, Erin, that an employer shouldn't have the right to make decisions about who he/she hires?
No.
What I see is a quiet and inexorable march toward single-payer healthcare in the US. And when employers don't have to worry about health insurance anymore, not only will the economy explode, employers will hire based on an applicant's qualifications instead of his placement on the actuary tables.
erin, your last comment: well said.
There's a terrific cognitive disconnect going on at Yahoo comments about these bills. Numerous male boneheads are screaming and bitching about the proposals, TOTALLY immune to the irony or satire. It's quite instructive...
MR
I find it amazing how the male population seems to miss the satire in this ...
Also, since it really should not be the employer's responsibility to pay for health insurance (which was a benefit of employment), single payer is the way it should be...
"But, the fake war on women won't cut it either."-Bill
Rick Perry missed the memo.
"Austin musician Marcia Ball is not a political activist. But after hearing that the state Women’s Health Program would lose federal funding as a result of the Legislature’s decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from the state Medicaid program, she organized a protest that drew hundreds of people to the state Capitol today."
Protest Targets Possible End of Women's Health Program -Texas Tribune 3/6/12
RJ
No one I know, including men, are missing the satire, Judy. My point is the waste of time by these so called law makers. And yes, RJ, it is a FAKE war on women. Someone mentioned that OWS should take up this cause. I wish they would. I can see the headline: "Woman raped by war on women protesor while protesting war on women" Of course, that would probably be ignored by the left. Just like the actual rapes durning OWS were mostly ignored. There is no war on women, people!! Unless you think Bill Mahr, calling Palin a Cunt or Rush calling Fluke a slut, is a war on women. Both of those guys are jerks for using that language about specifice individuals.
So declining funding for preventive healthcare checkups for low income females just because you don't like the provider does not constitute an aggressive and destructive act against women that could euphemistically be called "War"? Trying to legislate the use of lady parts is not "War"? You're delusional. BTW, the War on Terror is fake as well. Maybe we should just abandon wars entirely.
As for suggesting OWS take up the womens cause...I suggested that perhaps OWS being characterized as an American "Arab Spring" may have been premature, that perhaps the "real" spring of liberation in the U.S. might be a revitalized women's movement. Otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about Bill.
Oh yeah. I suspect if one checked crime statistics one would find rapes occuring in the Bay Area. Perhaps they should shutter the homes and businesses and close the damn thing down.
RJ
No war on women, eh?
Go read up on the Ohio Heartbeat Bill. It bans all abortions after about 6 weeks with no exceptions. A woman must be in imminent danger of losing her life before a doctor can legally perform an abortion.
"Sorry Mr. Smith, but we have to wait until just before she dies before we can go in there. Sure hope we catch this in time. And if not, hey, it's in God's hands."
That's if the daddy's on the scene. I suppose he might not be if he raped the woman.
Amazing that the GOP will mandate putting a woman's life at risk in order to protect a rapist's unborn baby.
The good news is all those dimwit puritan old white men are dying off. The bad news is I'm an old white man.
If you count actual casualties, the war is on unborn children. I dont think abortions have to be reported but a conservative estimate would be about 1 million a year in the United States. Now THAT's a war! #winning
Birthing a child is fatal. Lets prohibit birth.
#problem solved
RJ
Great idea! Kids are a pain in the ass. #getoffmylawn
"Do you really think, Erin, that an employer shouldn't have the right to make decisions about who he/she hires?
No.
What I see is a quiet and inexorable march toward single-payer healthcare in the US. And when employers don't have to worry about health insurance anymore, not only will the economy explode, employers will hire based on an applicant's qualifications instead of his placement on the actuary tables."
I have every confidence that our government will make up or find something else for small business to worry about.
And the day employers no longer have the right to make hiring decisions is the day our economy truly goes in the ^hitter. If an employer can't make those decisions, whey are they in business in the first place?
I have two friends who started small businesses where I live, and if I were to suggest that they no longer had the ability to hire/fire people, they'd look at me like I had two thumbs coming out of my forehead. I can see it now ....
Applicant: "I have no experience, have never worked in a business like yours, and have no clue what it takes ."
Employer: "It doesn't matter since I have no right to make hiring decisions. When can you start?"
I'm all for hiring people based on their qualifications. But the truth is, whether we all like it or not people of all stripes discriminate, whether they know it or not. They discriminate for a lot of varied reasons, whether we know them or not, and whether it is fair or not. We probably all know people who've applied for jobs that were fully qualified for them who were not hired. Fully qualified is one thing - but employers use other criteria to choose the best potential employees, not just qualifications. Maybe it's the way a person presents themselves, their body language, eye contact, confidence, knowledge, etc. If all the applicants are equally qualified and there is only one position available, an employer has no choice but to look at attributes that would most benefit the hire and the business as well.
The bottom line is this: employers hire those who they believe are a good fit for their business. If an employer believes employees who don't smoke, or dress well, or speak well, etc. are a good fit for their business, that's who they're going to hire, all things being equal. Some will say that isn't fair. Well, it isn't. But that's also reality. And a single payer healthcare system isn't going to change it, either.
Al
TRAG
Arizona's about to pass a bill that would mandate that women show their employers her health records regarding birth control if the employer so chooses. Then, if said employer doesn't approve, he can fire her.
Really.
I don't give a shit what your religion or morals are. Employers have no biz in this. TOUGH SHIT if they don't like that insurance covers BCP.
THIS IS A WAR ON WOMEN.
That was probably not my best written statement, but you people get the picture.
I'm a gonna try this one mo' time but I'll probably get no more traction than I did previously. The whole birth control/ employer rights issue is a red herring. Either one supports universal coverage or one doesn't. If one does then in an effort to make it as economically feasible as possible the system has to have everyone and everything covered. Once exceptions begin to get made it fucks up the model from a dollars and cents perspective. This is not my idea. It is the testimony given before congress by the fucking CEO of Well Point(a gravy sucking capitalist for profit corporation) prior to the healthcare debacle. In America the historical model and gateway to health insurance has been employer provided plans. That what the model is fashioned after. The infrastructure for delivering the product is already in place. It is entirely reasonable to do it differently but IT WILL COST MORE MONEY. No one is trying to usurp anyones rights. The idea is to provide access to healthcare to EVERYONE for the BEST VALUE POSSIBLE. Capitalism at its finest. Unfortunately there are assholes in the world who believe this idea of mutual aid violates gods law or adam smiths law or affirms Marx and Lenin so they say fuck the vulnerable and let 'em die no way would I ever in a million years do something to anger god or please those heathen socialists so they create barriers that derail the whole damn process. In the mean time what we wind up with is the tirelessly maligned SOCIALIST OBAMACARE which actually enriches INSURANCE COMPANIES AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES ENORMOUSLY. Have you heard ANY manufacturer of erectile dysfunction medicine say Obamacare is a bad idea? Has Blue Cross run full page adds in the NYT warning about the negative impact of the legislation? Hell No! Someone-ANYONE-turn off the goddamn tv and read a book.
RJ
"I don't give a shit what your religion or morals are. Employers have no biz in this. TOUGH SHIT if they don't like that insurance covers BCP."
In other words, we shouldn't care if the government forces people to support, pay for, or tolerate things their faith or morals tells them are wrong. We also don't care if these kinds of things are done without the consent of the governed by those who govern. Last time I looked, such a position violates the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments to our Constitution.
As I've said before, I think most reasonable people would agree that providing access to BCP and other contraceptive means to women via health insurance is a good thing. This issue isn't about that - it's forcing people to pay for something that is the issue, particularly if they hold strong religious or moral beliefs that go against birth control. In other words, again, it is about who is paying for it and/or who is forced to pay for it. Obama himself realized this after taking on the Catholic Church. He backed off and then said the Insurance Companies would pay for it. Hell, even Biden and Sibelius told him it was a bad idea.
As for the bill in AZ, I don't think it has a hope in hell of passing.
"Addicting Info started as a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads."
Not a non-partisan, unbiased site, I must say. And I guess the left doesn't do the same thing, right?
Al
TRAG
RJ +1
In other words, we shouldn't care if the government forces people to support, pay for, or tolerate things their faith or morals tells them are wrong.
I was pretty sure the Iraq war was wrong and I still had to pay for it. My tax dollars purchased the bullets that killed 16 civilian Afghans. I'm not too happy about that.
Americans have to pay for all sorts of things they oppose. Catholics have been paying for birth control for the troops via taxes for decades. The entire argument is a sham.
I swear the nest time one of these McChurches that spring up in my county about every 6 months petitions the road commissioner for an easement for their driveway and parking lot I'm going to protest it claiming it's a subversive plot to socialize the asphalt business.
RJ
P.S. Erin. Not only did our tax dollars support the presence of troops in Kandahar but they will pay me to do psychotherapy with the fellow soldiers of the shooter so they can learn to live with the horrors of their deployments. (Preliminary reports -PRELIMINARY- suggest the shooter had 4 previous deployments and a Traumatic Brain Injury) 16 people are dead. His family is forever scarred and we're arguing about whether Puerto Ricans should speak english to achieve statehood. BRILLIANT!
All this holier-than-thou "moral opposition" to birth control pills is turning my stomach. The concept is virtually non-existent in practice (Catholics? Not using BCPs? GIVE. ME. A. BREAK.)
Like every other "issue" the righties are waxing indignant over these days, it has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with saying anything in order to get the black guy out of office.
Take Romney, for instance. He was for mandatory BCP coverage before he was against it.
In his 2006 Massachusetts health care law, Mitt Romney embraced a virtually identical contraception coverage mandate as President Obama recently has, experts say, and as a result expanded access to birth control for hundreds of thousands of women.
source
I'm ashamed to add this as a post script but the Sargeant who has been identified as the Afghan shooter will likely spend the rest of his life in a prison cell taking powerful antipsychotic medication all but forgotten by the outside world. With any luck he'll have a compassionate chaplain who will persuade him that there are better reasons not to commit suicide than the reality death means an eternity in hell.
RJ
"I was pretty sure the Iraq war was wrong and I still had to pay for it. My tax dollars purchased the bullets that killed 16 civilian Afghans. I'm not too happy about that. "
Our Constitution provides for a "well regulated militia" and a "common defense." It also states that the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The War Powers act gives him the authority to deploy those forces for 60 days, after which time he must gain Congressional approval for continued deployment. Congress, on the other hand has the power to declare war. If you are/were opposed to Iraq, you were perfectly within you rights to express your opposition to our elected leaders.
I've said elsewhere that we, the people usually have little say in either how our tax dollars are used, and how/when/where/why our Armed Forces are deployed. That they were deployed to Iraq against your better wishes should not surprise you or anyone else. And it's not the first time in our history it happened. Can you say Korea, Vietnam?
Comparing defense to healthcare is apples and oranges. One is addressed in our Constitution and the other is not. No one I know would argue that we should not use tax dollars to support our armed forces. Why? Because it:
1 - Makes sense. There are bad people out there that would do us harm.
2 - Is provided for in our Constitution, the law of the land.
As for the the Staff Sergeant who killed 16 Afghan citizens, that is indeed tragic. He will be tried and punished accordingly (it wouldn't surprise me if he got the death penalty) according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As to the bullets that he used to carry out this horrible act, keep in mind that the ammunition we supply our armed forces with is a requirement if they are to be successful in winning the fights we send them to. We supply that ammuniton as a result to each Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine or Coast Guardsman as necessary or required. As RJ has noted, the soldier in question allegedly had several deployments and TBI - not exactly a recipe for normal behavior expected of our soldiers. Finally, to say you're opposed to our tax dollars funding ammunition, for this individual or anyone else is a bit ridiculous. I mean, what are we going to do? Send our soldiers to war with weapons but no ammo? Tell them to use spit balls and foul language? Again, the soldier in question did a terrible thing, and he will be held accountable. But to say that you oppose our tax dollars being used for ammunition based on the tragic actions of one individual or several individuals out of the thousands that have served honorably just doesn't wash, at least not with me, anyway.
Health care is not addressed in our Constitution. Some will argue that the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" infers health care. But that phrase is ambiguous enough to the point that anyone could pretty much extrapolate anything they chose out of it. If you truly believe (and I think you do) that everyone should have health care, and that birth control, contraception, or any number of other health/medical procedures issues should be covered, I recommend you begin the process of canvassing our elected representatives to draft an amendment to the Constititution to that end. That way there would be no question as to whether it was constitutional or not, which, in the end is what this whole thing is really about.
I'm done commenting. We will once again agree to disagree.
Al
TRAG
Preamble. U.S. Constitution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Please provide the interpretation that concludes promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty excludes a sustainable shelter and a state of health conducive to a fruitful existence free of pain and suffering.
RJ
@ RJ: As I said above, I'm done commenting on this particular subject as further commentary would not only be fruitless but also a waste of my and possibly others' time. If you wish to continue the discussion, email me privately. Erin has my email address.
V/R,
Al
TRAG
Ok.
"Out here."
RJ
P.S. Not to preclude the possibility that the other 647 MEMBERS FOLLOWING THIS HERE BLOG MIGHT COMMENT OCCAISIONALLY AS AN ACT OF CIVIC PRIDE.
There are any number of things I do not understand, RJ, RSS feeds being one of them. When I meander through a bunch of sign-in pages after clicking that "subscribe in a reader" button over there on the sidebar, however, Feedburner tells me that I have some 1000 subscribers in addition to the 647 "members" listed under Google Friend Connect.
Which means there's 1,600 people (give or take) reading this here content who are mum most of the time.
The silence of the lurkers has affirmed my most sinister suspicions. A secret sect of Algonquian mute maple syrup producers are stalking Al TRAG until an opportune moment at which time they will force feed him organic buckwheat pancakes genetically engineered to make him spontaneously sing Woody Guthrie songs. (Accented with a melodic base line of course.)
RJ
"The silence of the lurkers has affirmed my most sinister suspicions. A secret sect of Algonquian mute maple syrup producers are stalking Al TRAG until an opportune moment at which time they will force feed him organic buckwheat pancakes genetically engineered to make him spontaneously sing Woody Guthrie songs. (Accented with a melodic base line of course.)"
"Algonquian maple syrup producers." I ran into to some in Vermont - You Know How I Feel.
Organic Buckwheat Pancakes? I like pancakes, organiic or otherwise.
Genetically engineered food? Not so much.
Woody Guthrie? Who's that? ;-)
Appropriate bass line? Every bass line is appropriate.
Al
TRAG
Someone just brought to my attention, a fact that has changed my mind on the entire issue of insurance coverage for birth control pills. Evidently, they are pretty effective at preventing the symtoms of PMS. I'm going to insist that all insurance policies cover birth control pills. This one benefit will save millions of marriages and reduce single parent families.
Ha.
"If she'd just straighten up and act right I wouldn't be here your honor."
Not to imply most divorces are caused by women enslaved by their hormones or anything.
Ha.
RJ
"But she wouldn't wear her hockey helmet, Your Honor"-is that the situation, RJ?
===================================
Interesting that when somebody gets out the sock-puppets and explains to a Neanderthal that there's something for HIM in hormonal birth control he's suddenly all turned around on the subject...
===================================
MR
Jeez! Even a little humor brings out the hate and name calling. #angerontheleft
"Jeez! Even a little humor brings out the hate and name calling. #angerontheleft"-Bill
I once had a physician friend who asserted bad breath was better than no breath. However I don't think it necessarily follows that a little humor is better than no humor at all.
RJ
P.S. MR you've found me out. My hockey helmet fetish will be my undoing.
Sorry about your bad breath.
@Bill-one of the accepted uses of Neanderthal in the dictionary is "a person with very old-fashioned ideas"-certainly you would have to agree with that assessment of yourself, at least as you express yourself here? No name-calling. No hate.
@RJ-I wasn't thinking of it in any fetish context-I was making a leap from your 'she wouldn't behave' comment to the next logical rationalization somebody before a judge might make. but rest assured, there IS a fetish group for that...
MR
@MR-
Then I've found myself out. I hate it when that happens.
RJ
Well. I guess so. I do have some old fashioned ideas. Like, here's an old fashioned idea: Kiss my ass! No hate, no name calling. Just an old fashioned idea from your friendly neanderthal commenter.
And "kiss my ass on the county square" right back atcha, champ...
Bill kissing anonymous' ass on the county square is a visual I just don't want to contemplate.
Al
TRAGI
@Al...such a retort was only issued over the safety of cyber-space...San Fran and all that-you know, when in Sodom and Gomorrah, etc...
MR
Post a Comment