It was quite fascinating to hear of John McCain's response to recent questions regarding his position on whether or not he thought it was unfair that some insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control prescriptions. Yes, John McCain, danced around the question like his pants were on fire. But, if you think about it, it really was a very good question. After all, one cannot happen without the other.
The problem is not just a matter of cost effectiveness or a question of medical necessity, as the insurance companies might argue. At stake here is the sexuality of men and women and the preferential treatment of the male gender.
One can only wonder which is more important, the ability of a man to rise to the occasion and perform sexually or the necessity of a woman to protect herself against an untimely pregnancy? Which pregnancy, strangely enough, could very well be the result of the male using Viagra. In either case, there is the deeper issue of who really has the right to enjoy sex?
For argument's sake let's just say that insurance companies should be required to pay for Viagra because the man's inability to attain an erection is deemed a medical condition, (EDD). Now, I don't know about some of these medical professionals and how they come up with the names to these conditions or how they determine whether something is a dysfunction or not, but when I was growing up they referred to that condition as OLD AGE. I could be wrong, but I believe part of the Creator's intent here was to install what might be referred to as a built in birth control system. Now, when this system is working properly, the woman doesn't have to worry about untimely pregnancies from this particular individual. Whom was, at least back in my day, referred to as a husband.
In any event, it would seem that many men in this "modern" day and age just don't want to admit or accept their anatomical limitations. This is especially true when these limitations are an indication of aging. Our masculinity is brought into question anytime there might be the slightest innuendo that we can't perform like the EverReady Bunny. And I could be wrong, but I would imagine that many senior women would feel quite relieved at the prospect that after several decades of dutiful performance to their husbands, often with little or no satisfaction of their own, that at last their husband's "manhood" has gone into retirement.
So, let's return now to John McCain's position in this discussion. The man is as old as Methuselah and if he does still have a sex life it would indubitably require the magical assistance of Viagra. Of course the man is going to think that it is o.k. for the insurance companies to pay for his enhancement medications. Add to this the obvious... the man has never had to worry a day in his life whether or not HE was going to get pregnant.
Why do some insurance companies not cover birth control medications? Because it is not politically correct. Women are supposed to get pregnant! Remember? By George, that's not a dysfunction. In fact, pregnancy is expected of a woman. Besides, if a woman gets pregnant it's her own fault. (WOW... I'd like to know how they do that one.)
Abortion is a horrible thing. What a blessed age in which we live, where medications are available that can prevent untimely pregnancies. But, no matter how you look at it, the woman is not going to be able to get pregnant without the participation of her male counterpart. What was John McCain thinking? In all fairness, allow women the right to receive equal medical coverage under the law.
