Once again, the taxpayers get "shafted".

The jokes on this thread write themselves...

And this is why the whole country is BROKE AND BANKRUPT, including California.

Fair is fair, they spend much more than that on the study of Female Sexual disorders!! But honestly, O'Bama just threw money at people without any kind of accountability being required.

This one HAS to go in bold!!!

After the gigantic and ongoing kerfuffle over "paying for my birth control", which by the way, has numerous medical uses, THIS, THIS, is going on????

I hate to break this to you guys, a limp dick never killed anyone, polycystic ovarian disease has. Jeebus, the double standards!

Sarah-3043284

I hate to break this to you -

if this 'dysfunction' is not fixed, then is 'birth control' even necessary? No matter how BOLD you are.

Neither one deserves funding. Plain and simple.

Granted, as you said, there were many over-reactions and stupid things said by Conservatives over the birth control issue, but it doesn't change the truth. We have no business paying for people to have safe sex. It's an absolutely ridiculous idea at any level.

Sorry for opening a can of worms lol.

@Sarah-3043284 while you have every right to feel the way you do concerning female matters and I respect your opinion. Your arguments are bit one-sided what matters to others should be equally as important as what matters to you. While you may be right a limp Dick never killed anybody prostate cancer, testicular cancer and for that matter diseases of the male reproductive system have left many men impotent and for them it's no joking matter. If you worked in healthcare and witnessed the profound changes in their personal happiness you may not think a limp Dick is a joking matter. How very noninclusive your statements are!!!!!!

Pigotry,

if this 'dysfunction' is not fixed, then is 'birth control' even necessary?

Yes, actually, it is, for all the numerous medical conditions it treats.

Mick,

While you may be right a limp Dick never killed anybody prostate cancer, testicular cancer and for that matter diseases of the male reproductive system have left many men impotent and for them it's no joking matter.

See, you would have a point if this was about me whining about paying for your sh**. It isn't, it's me whining about some people's hypocrisy.

I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards healthcare of ALL kinds, what I have a problem with, is when people bi**h about birth control and women's health, and paying for it, and then ta da... something that technically isn't even "health" is being paid for, and nobody says a peep.

How many comments do you think would be posted if this article were entitled, "Tax Payer Money Used to Fund Birth Control"???

I'll give you a hint, it'd be thousands, as there were when the articles WERE about birth control.

LMAO. The whole country is going broke, we need to make damn sure men can get an erection.

Given the economic crisis in California, including the huge tuition hike proposed by California universities, I find this report about how stimulus money was used indicative of criminal behavior. That money was supposed to help in retaining teachers and easing the plight of students. Instead, it's used to study male sex organs. No doubt this occurred during the Schwarzenegger administration.

I would make the state return that money to the taxpayers. And then I'd file charges against whoever was responsible for mismanaging stimulus funds.

Mick: From an ABC news story dated Sept. 4th 2009- "About 75 percent of all women never reach orgasm from intercourse alone -- that is without the extra help of sex toys, hands or tongue. And 10 to 15 percent never climax under any circumstances." Can you imagine if these statistics applied to men, that 10- 15% NEVER had an orgasm? It would be declared a national emergency. Do you think "personal happiness" is not important to women? Does it seem fair that millions are spent to assure that nearly every last man can enjoy sexual satisfaction at the expense of 85-90% of women? Rather than try to defend your position, perhaps you could simply admit that you don't give a rats azz about anything other than yourself.

NBC Bay Area talked to the University of California San Francisco, the institution that received the grant. "Does it make you wonder a little bit, stimulus money for a study like this?" Kovaleski asked Jeff Sheehy, who works at the UCSF Aids Research Center. "No it doesn't," he answered. "Because to my mind we save money if we get better health outcomes."

"Better health outcomes?!?" We are talking about erectile disfunction in overweight middle age men. If they really want to get it up, they can lose the weight...Gee, and that didn't take a quarter million dollars to figure out. Let alone, why do we have to have surveys about sex habits in the first place. I could understand it when AIDS came along, that actually has to do with the Public's health. This does not.

As for polycystic ovary disease and birth control. The number of women who have this is as many as 1 in 20. Birth control pills are not the only medication used to treat this. In contrast, it is not used if you want to have children, other hormonal treatments are used, along with diet and exercise. The birth control,-polycystic ovary syndrome excuse is way overused in this debate. It does not justify free birth control any more than erectile disfunction should qualify men for free viagra. Nor is it right for Doctors to diagnose "faux" hormonal problems so a woman can get birth control. It is wrong any way you look at it, and gives folks like Sarah fuel to "support" their opinon due to false reporting.

http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/polycystic-ovary-syndrome.cfm#b

At least things are looking "up" !

Willowbrook,

http://www.nyu.edu/shc/medservices/oral.contraceptives.html

http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/med-uses-ocp.html

http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/a/although_menstrual_irregularities_may_not_be_curable_in_all_cases_there_are_treatments_available_t/treatments.htm

Not to mention, many woman aren't capable of safely and healthily carrying a child to term, which means, the costs for treated them should they become pregnant are extreme in comparison to using the pill, which is also a lot less invasive then a hysterectamy.

Same goes for known genetic conditions passed through the parents. Would you rather pay for a pill, or pay for a disabled person for the rest of it's life?

paramed

Actually after reading your last sentence you should take it and simply apply to yourself. The point of my statement to Sarah was simply that different problems apply to different people and what's important to her or you for that matter may not be as important to me. Let's stay on subject the article dealt with a male problem not with birth control not with women's problems it was about men's problems. And your moronic logic that because it's a man's problem it gets priority is total bull ship. Take off your blinders and understand that everyone's opinion has a place. Where's your sense of fairness and inclusion .

@JoeB who wrote:

Fair is fair, they spend much more than that on the study of Female Sexual disorders!!

Really? Could you PLEASE find me a link that states exactly how much of the government's stimulus money went to the study of Female Sexual disorders. - I cannot find one myself.... the key word here is "stimulus" money, if a private foundation raises money for female sexual disorders, that is NOT stimulus money.

200 interviews is not even a plausible study.

What is more important in general - the ability to walk or the ability for men to get it on with a larger penis than they were born with? My insurance carrier has deemed, it's better if men can get it up high. I was tackled in middle school during regular gym class and broke my ACL (knee ligament)(this was in the 80's)...over the years, I have lost ALL my cartilage, the ACL is now non-functioning, the other three ligaments that hold my knee together are too loose (causing me to fall, regularly). I am in constant pain from the bones rubbing together - my current and previous knee surgeons (I've had 8 knee surgeries ) have written my insurance carrier (United Healthcare) multiple times for me to have a cartilage transplant (something covered by worker's comp and other insurance companies) - I am too young for a full knee replacement, however, if something is not done soon, a full knee replacement will be difficult because of the extent of bone erosion and the hardware in place - United Healthcare turned me down, saying it was "experimental," despite the thousands of dollars I pay them for my health insurance every year (and the thousands of people who have had cartilage replacements), BUT guess what they do cover??? Penile Enhancement

I sent a letter demanding to know how Penile Enhancement surgery was accepted yet my knee was not - their answer (in writing) was that "Penile Enhancement is an IMPORTANT "QUALITY OF LIFE" issue for a male," yet a cartilage replacement was not a quality of life issue, eventually, I could have a knee replacement....I have been fighting this for years, starting at the age of 32 - so I apparently do not need to walk, because that is not a "quality of life issue, but if a man, needs a larger, longer schlort (schlort to schlong) in order have a nice life - I'll agree with that if while "enhancing" him, they give me his cartilage and cut all his knee ligaments! His quality of life should be fine!

Some of these posts are hillarious! Thanks for the much needed laugh!

$$ spent on erectile dysfunction in California...must be a really important issue! Overweight men with performance issues. ROFLMAO

Here is a nice list of the ridiculous things our tax money goes too (not all stimulus related):

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/30-stupid-things-the-governemnt-is-spending-money-on

My personal favorite:

According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. military spent "$998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida".

@Black Kettle

UnitedHealthcare....the real issue.

Get your Dr. involved and escalate the issue with uhc. Best of luck to you!

Sarah, how about some non-biased sources?

There are already low cost and free sources for birth control out there. By your reasoning, most women have problems, just not so. Not so long ago, no insurance paid for birth control, hormonally related or not. And you know what, we didn't die, nor did we go without. We simply paid for it and moved on. We do not need the govt. determining what we can and cannot have in the way of health care, or acting like we are helpless and need them to provide us with "free things." Bottom line, it is not free and never has been. The Taxpayer is paying for all this "free" stuff, to the tune of 62% of the current Federal budget. Let's make it go higher by giving away "free" birth control to all. (sar)

Just like all that wasted stimulus money.......(I would love to get that $600 for giving an interview......sheesh!) (But I have to admit, Solyndra takes the cake so far in wasting taxpayer money.)

Of course this study had to be done by the University of California San Francisco.

Gosh, we have to continue supporting our "higher institutions of learning" somehow. /sarcasm/

Wait a dad gum minute.....Mr. Obama and his lemmings will say that the Stimulus worked (LIE) and saved or created 4,000,000 jobs (another FIB).

Willowbrook,

How are those sources biased??? There medical websites that have nothing to do with the government.

Please explain how and why they're biased...

By your reasoning, most women have problems,

Please quote where I said the majority of women have problems...

Furthermore, the majority of grown women ARE sexually active, and guess what, BC will ALWAYS be cheaper for individuals AND society, then pregnancies. Especially if those pregnancies aren't wanted.

There are already low cost and free sources for birth control out there.

Not so long ago, no insurance paid for birth control, hormonally related or not. And you know what, we didn't die, nor did we go without.

Maybe you and I didn't, but prior to the Planned Parenthood days, something the conservatives would LOVE to see disappear by the way, it wasn't so simple. Was it?

We do not need the govt. determining what we can and cannot have in the way of health care, or acting like we are helpless and need them to provide us with "free things."

Because apparently you live in a bubble, where you're uneffected by the rest of society. The less access to affordable healthcare, either publically or privately provided, the greater the cost. I'd rather have my tax dollars go to something relatively cheap and easy to provide a bigger more expensive/difficult problem. Like massive amounts of unwanted pregnancies.

And, just a question, is your outrage as great when you tax money goes to bombing lands in decades long wars? Or is it just funding for those possibly less fortunate then you, that gets you all flustered?

Looks like our tax dollars are working hard...

cms5,

As for United Health Care, any health insurance company that spends as much as they do on advertising, obviously doesn't spend wisely. There are days when I'd bet I see on TV and hear on radio, the "surfer girl" commercial dozens of times.

For one thing, it seems unlikely that there are a lot of people shopping around for health care like it were some consumer product. Yet the amount of commercials these guys air is ridiculous. Any company that spends that much on marketing, simply can not be a good provider. High rates, denied claims and excessive profits are paying for all this advertising. If I got a dollar for everyone of their commercials I see and hear, it would more than cover my health care costs.

Companies that brag a lot about how good they are typically do so because they aren't very good.

@cms5 - I did get my doctor involved, he sent them no less than a 10 page history of my knee and the reason for the transplant - he then added over 25 studies that backed up the procedure, his credentials, etc. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with UnitedHealthCare... but we have been writing and appealing their decision for 8 years now - and my knee doctor is one of the best in the world....

Thank you for your kind words! I hope you have a wonderful day!

ldo

Wait a dad gum minute.....Mr. Obama and his lemmings will say that the Stimulus worked (LIE) and saved or created 4,000,000 jobs (another FIB).

Please post in great detail, every penny that came out of the stimulus package, where it went, what the return on investment was, and then if it did/did not create jobs. Then, please post where each and every member of Congress in the GOP party did/did not support this bill and prove the stimulus did not help them in some way.

Or should we just take your word for it.. since you are a complete expert in the field of economics...

_____________________________________________________________________________

As for this program....... this another area of wasteful spending that could be cut out of the federal budget. I don't care who is for it democrats/republicans, cut the fat.

1NewDay,

Thank you for pointing out how utterly ridiculous it is for companies like UHC to advertise at all.

Those who receive health insurance through their jobs, have NO choice in what insurance company they get stuck with. That decision is made by their employer, based on cost and influence.

Why do they advertise? Who knows!

@ Willowbrook

It appears that you think that access to birth control, etc.. is something that is covered. I have health insurance and I paid (when I needed them - before cancer) a co-pay of $30 per pack of birth control, the script was written so that I received 3 packs at a time ($90.00). I was in France for a few months visiting my then - boyfriend and ran out of birth control - I didn't know what to do, I stopped at a small pharmacy and gave my empty pack to the French pharmacist. He asked for my passport, disappeared for a moment, and came back with the EXACT same pills that I was on in the US, made by Wyeth - I was dreading the possible cost, since I didn't have insurance in France (was living with boyfriend - on break from work)...He charged me in Euros, the US equivalent of $9.00 for all 3 packs ($3.00 a pack) .... Why are the same BC pills now probably over $100.00 dollars without insurance (or a subsidy like Planned Parenthood) in the US - yet only between $5-10, per pack in the EU? I'm sure Wyeth still make a profit in Europe, they make a killing in the US!

I guess it's only fair to point that the University of California was the largest donor to the Obama campaign in 2008.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

I don't want to hear another effing word about Planned Parenthood being an issue for taxpayers after reading this sh*t. When there are people worried about paying for birth control or health tests for women that can't afford it and they are spending millons of dollars on erectile dysfunction???? Can you say hypocrite? Sickening.

@1NewDay

UHC is a carrier that handles medicare supplemental insurance. They need to get their name out there to all of the Senior citizens looking for supplemental insurance. Seeing so many ads must mean they're a good company...NOT!

@Black Kettle

You're lucky to have a great Doctor! Very few of the good ones accept uhc. It's appalling to hear that you've been fighting this for 8 years!

@Sarah

willowbrook is correct. Women have managed for many years without a handout from the government or health insurance providers. They either took care of paying for it themselves, or (heaven forbid) abstained.

So we fund BC for women...and they forget to take that 'free' pill, don't refill their prescription, or because BC is not 100% effective they become pregnant...then what? I suppose we should then pay for an abortion...it's 'cheaper' in the long run, right? While BC may aleviate other female issues, it does not come without its own side effects...what happens when these free pills cause strokes and/or death?

Just a few things to think about....

@Diverdown1 - couldn't agree with you more!

About some of the "stimulus" projects (with their $1000 signs, saying "Putting Americans back to Work," let me tell you an honest story of that in my neighborhood.

If only, I could post pictures... I live in a working class, inner-city, minority neighborhood. Some streets have large, expensive houses, others are small and close together. There is one short street, it is a mess - there is NEVER a time during the year where you are not dodging potholes that could ruin your tire/car. This is a big problem when it rains, because you can't tell if it's a 2" deep pothole, or a 1' sinkhole.

I noticed that people on this street (with the smaller houses) were randomly having blocks of the sidewalk in front of their home (or the "apron" of their driveway) completely redone. One house may have only one block redone in concrete or several piecemeal. I stopped to ask a worker if they were ever going to get to the street. He worked for a private company - the city had sent letters to certain houses where they "found" problems, like a crack in the sidewalk, etc and were making the homeowners pay to have the blocks fixed by a certain date or the city would fix it at a much higher rate. This company charged $1,200 per replacement block - the city would charge $3,200. I asked (since I live within walking distance of the street) WHY? .... The large houses have some very cracked or slanted old blocks but they did NOT have to fix theirs (interesting).... I was told by the worker that the Mayor had ordered this to PROVE to the Federal Gov't that so and so many jobs were being created in the city - so that the city would receive more stimulus money....perfectly fine (maybe a crack but no weeds) sidewalk blocks in the poorer section of the neighborhood had to be replaced at the cost of the homeowner.....this is how we are "rebuilding" America? Homeowners don't even "own" their sidewalks - all cities have easements that cover the sidewalk....I don't understand how this is even legal, but I do live in OH.

Sorry to be off topic of Penile Enhancements - but this "stimulus" is not helping the average American at all.

Why was Clinton so accomplished as president and governor? partly because of his drive (in many aspects)

so obviously curing erectile dysfunction not only promotes personal health, happiness for members of both genders, but also promotes healthy ambitions among politicians. Of course there is always downside to this (such as - Anthony Wiener Tweeter).

Why wasting 'stimulus' money on this, I thought there has already been solution to this dysfunction - Viagra

Why is anyone surprised that a limp dicked administration would fund research about limp dicks?

@ Sarah, hate to tell you, but due to Obamacare, I have less access to care now than I ever had in my life. I now have NO prescription plan until I pay $5000 first. This is what the rest of you, who work in the larger companies are going to get come 2014. I don't wish it upon anyone, as I can tell you from first hand experience, it sucks.

As a person who paid for her birth control for her hormonal problems out of pocket, it was far less a burden on me than what I now have. And I was poor most of that time, and it still was nothing compared to the here and now. (But I will also tell you, the cost of treatment overall was more reasonable, we weren't paying for all these non-essential treatments, Illegal getting free treatment, and over-the-top tort liability insurance we are now paying for.) Even if you totally disagree with my opinion and reality of my situation, please heed these words. Hormonal treatment, for any reason, runs the risk of other, worse problems than the original problem. Running off to take a pill, may not really be in every one's best interest. Yes, it is convenient, but it is, not ultimately, the cure, and increases the risk of other problems, like high blood pressure/stroke, heart attack, cancer and sexually transmitted diseases.

For the most part, I find you idealistic. There's nothing wrong with being idealistic, until you can't pay for the idea. This is the problem we run into time and again in this country. That's the real difference between you and me. In an ideal world, all health care would be available to everyone without cost. But we don't live in an ideal world, and as long as we have a currency based economy, it is going to cost. Therefore, the real goal is to provide affordable health care. For me, it comes down to necessity. Given the choice between affordable cancer drugs and free birth control, I'm for the cancer drugs. The vast majority of women DO NOT REQUIRE birth control drugs to live. But everyone who is prescribed that cancer drug has to have it to live, until a better treatment comes along. These are the real choices we need to be looking at. Our current system will not be affordable if we pay for every little thing out there. Let alone, is it actually necessary for the insurance to pay for every little thing?

@cms5 - I am forced into UHC by that tiny, scrupulous, company called General Electric - no, I'm not in a Union or manufacturing.... you would think GE could negotiate a better (and less expensive for employees) contract with UHC, given the sheer size of it's workforce in the US & throughout the world.

I mean no disrespect, however, there was a time when women repeatedly jumped off chairs in order to try and abort an unwanted pregnancy. I have no problem with women having to pay for BC pills, but not because a pharmaceutical company wants to make BILLIONS in profit. Generic BC costs about $9.00 a pack, while new ones can cost $90.00 per pack. (Link below). The link stated that the best BC is an IUD - I asked my doctor years ago for an IUD, and the next doctor, and the next - seems that if you have never been pregnant (or had an abortion), they won't give you one because they are too difficult to insert (or so I was told).

The rest of the article was also interesting and included the Sarah v. Willowbrook argument:

Peipert notes that contraception is cheaper than what insurers or taxpayer-funded Medicaid pay for prenatal care and delivery. He says economic studies have found that every $1 spent on family planning can save nearly $4 in expenditures on unintended pregnancy.

Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2012-03-09/Birth-control-prices-range-widley-from-100-to-1000/53434126/1

It seems Sarah is correct, monetarily speaking

When I was young, I had to use Planned Parenthood, I graduated from college, lived by myself and my insurance for my first job did not kick in for 6 months (during college, the University had it's own hospital, for $200.00 (2 semesters), you had free access to doctors, x-rays, all prescriptions, etc - go Illini!)

In my experience, it is better for a woman, no matter how much money she makes, to go to a women's clinic - they are dedicated to your healthcare and not limited to your sexual healthcare. You may pay more than your insurance co-pay, some accept insurance - I know that my old Primary Care doc - kept saying that I was fine, I knew I wasn't (bleeding 3 out of 4 weeks, losing a pound of weight A DAY, etc..), the women's clinic diagnosed me with cancer (after two simple tests), made my appointment and sent me to an oncology specialist within 2 days, followed up with me, etc.....the kicker, I had just had a complete ObGyn visit with my Primary Care Doctor (3 weeks before, I just didn't believe him that I or my tests were "fine" - funny how he missed everything, despite obvious signs of a problem.... I was lucky that I decided that maybe a place dedicated to women would find out what was wrong with me...had I not gone there, I would not be talking to you now, I'd be ashes. - again, this is just MY experience.

I specifically said that I believe (and the study does also) that Sarah is correct:

monetarily speaking

When talking about BC - there is the monetary issue AND an emotional issue. The emotional issue may be based on a person's personal beliefs - I understand that, however, personal beliefs should not be inflicted on others unless. Sometimes there is a law stating that beliefs can be inflicted on others- which leads to inequality, yet, these unjust laws are, usually, at some point in time overturned.

I have no children, yet I pay property and city taxes that fund local schools. Older people whose children are no longer in public schools also pay these taxes, is it fair - not really BUT it is not an everyday issue in the news because it is not an emotional issue or an issue based on a belief system.

@Willowbrook - I have what sounds like the same plan as you (courtesy of UHC & General Electric) - years ago we paid much less for insurance (still having it through GE)....I do not think it is "Obamacare" but rather the Insurance, Big Pharma, lobby - and large companies don't want to get stuck with the bill, so they pass it on to their employees and their employees families. Large insurance carriers can basically do whatever they want because their is no alternative but that was the case long before "Obamacare" became a word. A $5000 deductible has been in place for us for years - I could say, I'm lucky that I'm sick (rheumatoid arthritis, Valley Fever, migraines, etc....) I have already hit my deductible for this year....but it is a great expense. Cuba has free healthcare for all its citizens and they have been under an embargo for over 50 years. It's not the President who says what you will pay for insurance, it's what the large global companies say you will pay - that is the problem. We the People have no say, no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office.

@ Black Kettle - your article, though 3 years old, says the cost is as low as $9 for generic, less if you go to a clinic. So there is affordable birth control available. If the woman chooses a more expensive type, then she should pay for her choice.

Also, I found your personal story interesting, and am glad your cancer was found. My story is the opposite of yours......I've never gone to a "woman's clinic" though I have been to a number of Doctors who also missed basic important symptoms. My family Doctor has always been the one who discovered the cause of my problems where the others failed. (Including cancer)

In your second post you speak of an "emotional" issue. Not seen too much of that, except for emotional immaturity. Essentially, a young one wants to "play" adult games, but is too timid to obtain the needed protection to play the game.....so to speak. Fewer folks have religious issues these days, unless their church is very anti-contraception. Those women do what they need to do and don't talk about it. As I think it should be, contraception should be between the woman, her Doctor, and her man, no one else.

@ BlackKettle - we lost our "Grandfathered" status at our first renewal, which was 8/2010. Small companies have been impacted by Obamacare immediately. Since you work for a large corp., you have a bit more time....The insurance companies, with the new criteria, made premium increases much larger than normal. They wanted 34% to keep the PPO we had. So we changed plans, and are now on a high deductible HSA plan. We can no longer afford a PPO. When losing Grandfathered status, we had to take on things like "no lifetime limits" and "free" preventitive care and of course, kids to 26. These are not "free." We are paying more for this. Where I live $5000 single/ $10,000 family) for a deductible is really high. Our cost of living and our pay is much lower than the East or West coast. That was the maximum from our insurance company last year. This year, they are bringing out even higher deductibles, to try and keep the small companies, like ours from dropping altogether. We will lose out in 2014 if this plan is still in play. We will not be able to afford to go from a $5000 deductible down to the $2500 they talk about in the plan. Then is when we will have to end coverage. I also signed a letter stating I would fairly distribute between employee/employer any returned premium if the insurance company didn't use 80% of our premiums paid. All the brokers I am currently working with, (it is time for our 3rd renewal now) says there will be no refund.

No I don't have UHC, they do not have a good network here.

@aWillowbrook

I think insurance companies and large companies got scared with "Obamacare," - I completely agree with you that our $5,000 (2 people - one who NEVER goes to the Dr.) and you $10,000 for family is ridiculous. We also had PPO's and paid much less - then a huge mailer (and emails) came to the house via Fed Ex trying to explain the HSA or Flex Account (FSA). Actually, we do have lifetime limits which may end up being a problem (for me) - that hasn't changed. There are too many cooks in the kitchen forcing these rates. My PC Dr. used to have a practice with one other doctor - now he is in an "alliance" and the quality of care has gone down completely - I also refuse to have surgery (again) at the hospital he is "aligned" with, so it may be cheaper for me to fly to Europe for a different type of knee surgery - and forget our insurance altogether for major but not immediate (like heart attack) surgeries.

I think that you, myself & Sarah are all on the same page - just seeing it from different angles. The insurance companies, Hospitals, large employers, (not small employers)etc... have everyone by the balls, companies cannot or do not want to pay what they did before, they want to pay less (bigger profit margin), so they pass it on to employees - it's a win-win for insurance companies if people are forced to be insured (2014), the only benefit now is for the uninsured, they cannot be turned away at the hospital...that is a good thing, however, it seems that a lot of people will be switching to Medicare, etc... which the government cannot even manage now - so there needs to be some strict regulations on these insurance companies & exactly what the government can mandate - they cannot all make record profits while milking, you, Sarah, and I to death (and everyone else also). I do see your point and agree, it's not affordable for anyone but the wealthy or those who work for Apple in the US, but I am not going to argue drugs (BC vs Chemo) or personal healthcare, simply because everyone has a different take on quality of life in regards to their health and healthcare. I am a Do NOT Resuscitate, I have an Aunt fighting for her life with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) - I will never go back on chemo again, (she had uterine cancer, did chemo, then later got the AML from the chemo) - if I get AML, I'll go out with a bang with whatever time I have left, but it will not be in a hospital...everyone is different, I support her fight, I hope she beats the AML.... I, myself would not fight it - which is why I do not agree that some drugs are "more important." For my Aunt, her chemo is very important....if I were in her shoes, pain relievers, probably narcotic, would be important for me, so that I could be in less pain, doing what I wanted...it's different for everyone.

When I said "emotional" I did mean the people that believe that the "morning after" pill is abortion, etc... those who believe that BC is not acceptable, one should abstain, etc... that's how I meant it and if you were on the forum of the word "marriage" in terms of two men and two women, you would find that there are a lot of people who want to impose their belief system, no matter how unequal it may be.

There is affordable generic BC, but if it makes a woman puke every morning, then she needs a different one which may not be generic...that is an issue.

Peace Willowbrook, and my article about birth control is dated March 9, 2012 - so it is not a three year old article on the price of BC.

The most important thing in the 21st century is 'human' capital - humans should have the drive to succeed - so I guess fixing dysfunction is an integral part of it.

Eating 'pork' also helps. Now all pigs are 'earmarked' to be slaughtered.

My guess is that most of the people complaining are much younger than 55.

It's just the tip of the iceberg. You can see what the use of stimulus funds has come to. The deficit becomes more tumescent while the taxpayers get boffed. I shudder to think what will happen when they erect the monument to this stupidity. Congressional oversight committees should be hard on this, or the taxpayers will get stiffed again.

I just think wasteful gov spending is par usual, the statis quo, normal even-----anyone here other than me old enough to remember $600.00 toilet seats? $200.00 for Craftsman screwdrivers (manual)?

As I recall medicare / caid will cover the cost of Viagra, et al but not BCP's----Face it ---It's a man's world out there and apparently they really don't care about women's illnesses or issues.

This is evidenced by the current trend to cut child care assistance for working poor and lower middle class women. And with such numbers of disabled vets returning home.

Welcome to the NEW WORLD ORDER------Give thanks in part to the KOCH brothers (the quiet puppeteers of the tea party)

The government is terrible at spending money period. They would have a more stimulative effect and better dispersal of the funds with greater multiplier effect if they just gave everyone a prepaid debit card for $1,000 bucks and said go nuts.

I found a list of stimulus money - state by state - but the site is reporting only the stimulus projects that are "ridiculous" by even INSANE standards. Sorry the link is so large, it's a PDF document, this is the Quick View

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:jvz_XeVxFXYJ:www.gop.com/images/research/where_did_all_the_money_go.pdf+how+much+government+stimulus+money+was+spent+to+study+female+sexual+disorders&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjISxerW_VqK-C2g7hV51nuDtj8hoVXFYdq3TWTIZbY_kCrvcSp9SXTNCmiRyOpWSE9lrWzeLFV4kCFviXtzsnSFik5Ai-_GDQ1RwT4H6xnxRf4Zm4ZB1i5Yq4SJuwVMrQUz9Px&sig=AHIEtbSJFtFaj69vWXZITc2_VIbpwBANwQ

@JoeB - this is how the stimulus money is helping women with "sexual disorders."

It seems women would feel more like rocking the boat if they were methamphetamine addicts....

This is what the state of Maryland received:

$30,000 To Study How Methamphetamines Affect Female Rat Sex Drive. “Methamphetamines and
the Female Rat Sex Drive … ($30,000) Researchers will spend nearly $30,000 to determine whether
methamphetamine gives female rats an overpowering desire to have sex. Human meth users report the drug creates ‘an insatiable need and urgency for sex,’ notes the University of Maryland researchers, and female meth users ‘are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors’ than women who use other drugs.” (Teri Sforza, “Stimulus Money Probes Why Men Don’t Like Condoms,” The Orange County Register’s “Watchdog,” 2/8/10)

Most money spent of single stupid stimulus project: - California

$535 Million For Loan Guarantee To Now-Bankrupt Solyndra. (Solyndra, “Solyndra Offered $535 Million Loan Guarantee

By The U.S. Department Of Energy,” Press Release, 3/20/09; Joe Stephens And Carol Leonnig, “House Republicans Step Up Solyndra Investigation,” The Washington Post, 9/1/11; George Avalos, “Fremont Solar Tech Firm Solyndra To Shut Down, Lay Off 1,100 Workers,” The San Jose Mercury News, 8/31/11)

Ohio spent 1 million advertising (by road signage) it's stimulus at work (many other states did also but, Ohio got the most money) ...I had one down the street from me, had I know it was worth over $1,000 dollars, I may have nicked it.

Is this a "pork" project???

No, just a little somethin somthin for the campaign donations in 2008...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Well, for one thing the article has some problems with it. If you follow the link on the ED project it isn't a California project but a Rhode Island project. And they have also paraphrased both projects mentioned to make them sound worse.

Recovery.Gov is the core site for looking up all the Stimulus spending and there is a lot of great info there. Something people need to realize too is that any Stimulus money awarded has to be approved at the State level first. The Federal role is primarily just setting the broad category guidelines, channeling the funds and tracking the spending. The idea is that, as we hear so often from the right, "the States know best how to spend the money." 99% of the "judging" of project worthiness was left up to the States rather than create a large Federal bureaucracy to analyze and judge each of the enormous number of projects and grants.

A lot of States tried to grab up as much money as they could, so they turned in some pretty lame stuff. Ironically, many red States that whined about the Stimulus, still managed to garner a lot of cash. For example Texas was the second highest recipient getting $17 billion in project money alone, not even counting the tax benefit portions and entitlement benefit help. I used to laugh when Perry was running for President, touting his job creation record, when most of what he was claiming came from jobs they reported as coming from Stimulus money!

Bottom line is that we can find fault with a lot of this spending, but it isn't fair to blame the Federal government or the Obama Administration for that, because the individual States had to make the requests after they approved them first. If you look at the individual States awarded projects, you can fairly easily draw some conclusions about who gamed the system and who really tried to create jobs out of the process.

$755 billion out of the original $840 billion planned has been spent. Tax benefits was the biggest piece, and projects came in at about 30% of the spending. Most people like to talk about the Stimulus in very loose, general terms and pick a relatively small number of seemingly wasteful examples to criticize, but really don't have a clue what it was all about or how the money got spent. Below is the government website at the general breakdown page. I would bet that 90% have no clue about the distribution. There is plenty of stuff here on the site and it is pretty interesting. I would highly recommend spending some time there.

www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx#Entitlements

What government does is always throw money at every problem. I wonder whether men or women approve this project - who is hurt more by this dysfunction.

What government does is always throw money at every problem. I wonder whether men or women approve this project - who is hurt more by this dysfunction.

More like limp to the left, while at the same time covering it up.

For all you posters who are making light of this discussion (above me and below me):

THANK YOU!!!!

I can't think of anything witty to say, but you have given me a good laugh today!♡

You are so right. More wasted money.

Steven100

The tax payer takes another one in the butt.

What do gays have to do with this article?

What do gays have to do with this article?

You don't have to be gay to take it in back. Just sayin'.

Stimulus money shouldn't be spent on an erectile study. That's like spending the rent money on porn.

@ trusaid and nabbed

Thank you for the chuckle---it was needed and welcome!

We can add this to the growing list of Obama's accomplishments. File this one right next to cash for clunkers

A dozen posts having some good fun with this story and of course a "Negative Nelly" has to come along to rain on everybody's parade.

Truth is truth: if we are stupid enough to continue this type of spending, no matter how big or small, we deserve everything we get. In this instance, size doesn't matter; the end result will sink us all.

Come on everybody this is stimulus money ultimately were trying to prop up the economy!

Bob, you forgot a couple of names, like "diaper boy Vitter", Ensign, Foley, Craig, and company. They should also be asked along with the names you gave.

There's a lot of waste in granting NIH grants. Everyone in academics knows the game. It's largely unregulated and unsupervised. I wonder how many worthless studies are funded by the NIH.

TParty,

I once worked at a University and I can tell you, the process is very, very regulated and supervised. It is very difficult to get a grant. There are a lot of hoops to jump through.

I did not work in the actual grant area, but the people who did were the most stressed out, exhausted people on campus.

Every week I read of a study of this and a study of that. Most of them have the "well, duh" or "you've got to be out of your mind" answers. Clearly, I'm in the wrong business. I need to start buying the National Enquirer and research their articles. You know, "how many Elvis sightings and why;" "alien abduction, impregnation, and abortion;" "weight loss miracles using this/that tropical plant (only found on third level of World of Warcraft)." Whoever funds these grants can pay me millions, and I will create at least one job (for me), instead of the .85 mentioned in the article.

@ProudTParty:

I wonder how many worthless studies are funded by the NIH.

I found this one:

The NIH once spent $800,000 in "stimulus funds" to study the impact of a "genital-washing program" on men in South Africa.

Link: http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/30-stupid-things-the-governemnt-is-spending-money-on

What "impact" could they be looking for? (not even sarc)

This was a CALIFORNIA use of stimulus funds, but you try to tie it to Obama. Alan you are the Limp One!

@Mary,

Got that right that he is the limp one. Should hear the stories his wife tells about him.

Alan can't get it up anymore and he's mad :(

Can't cure the common cold but boy, oh boy we are all over this erectile dysfunction thing. What a waste of time and money. Meanwhile no funding for birth control or child care.

It's a man's world with no change in sight.

I agree with the first comment.

and they plan to raise taxes even higher, dave

I agree!

Yep, and mexifornia is a DEMOCRAT controlled state!