Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Friday, July 25, 2008

Priorities (Girl Dub)


Ladies, this is priceless:

John Mc"Crypt Keeper"Cain is up to his Old Man Grumpus ways again.

Back on July 9, he was asked whether he thinks it's fair for insurance companies to cover Viagra for men, but not birth control for women. Here is his response.


Watch and be afraid! BE... VERY... AFRAID!!





Yes, this is the same man who in 2003 voted against forcing insurance companies to cover birth control.

And this is the same senator who claimed in 2007 not to know whether condoms prevented sexually transmitted diseases.

Ladies, I'm sorry; I just don't know what to tell you -- Keep 'em crossed?


(Your fingers, that is... that insurance companies will cover birth control for all women and not just pills for the erectile dysfunctional boys)

Well, it's good to know where John McCain's priorities ...ahem... stand.

Labels: , , , ,

20 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I guess the Republicans need a new way of choosing their candidate for president.

The contrast between him and Obama is startling.

Like most politicians, McCain is hesitant to answer a question or express an opinion without developing a strategy with his pollsters and spin doctors.

July 25, 2008 8:20 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Thank you VD. Yes, with regard to McCain, BE AFRAID. BE VERY AFRAID.

July 25, 2008 8:26 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Well, McCain is behind the times in some areas, but overall, Obama would raise taxes to the sky - if you like what the city and state are doing, vote for Obama. They always blame it on the Republicans.

There sadly IS a lot of sexism still when it comes to women in healthcare. Guys, close your eyes, but Doll and others, be advised that if you go in to see your OB for a fibroid, non- benign tumor in the uterus -- which affects upto 1/2 of all women, especially those who's borne babies and experienced the estrogen surge -- if you're over 40, the "standard of care" is a hysterectomy. That's a huge, major surgery with high chance for complications like hemmorraging, a long recovery period, puts you right into overnight and traumatic menopause which can be catastrophic physically and mentally, and what the doctors deny but body-concsious patients will tell you, the procedure severs nerves "down there" forever, especially if it removes your otherwise healthy ovaries. Because this barbaric procedure is no less than female castration, but they'll never use that word. They hardly ever do this barbaric procedure for such a cause in Europe or even places like China/Asia and India, where they swear by homeopathic remedies.

Here in the U.S., only if a patient researches on her own and insists, you find there's a totally non- invasive vaginal outpatient surgery to remove the thing and send you home in hours with a 1-2 gentle recovery time. WHY don't they use this more often? It takes skilled surgeons, and it's easier and has a higher insurance reimbursement to do a full hysterectomy. So they'll ruin your life to make an easy few thousand bucks and not have to pass you on to a specialist if they're not capable.

Just one outrageous iniquity to women that happens to almost a million women a year. (Only a handful really need this procedure, if they've waited too long or have cancer.) But the misogynistic medical system -- even young female doctors, surprisingly -- see women as "breeders" only vs. considering their quality of life.

While they cry and bleed bullets over a guy's every parts even when he's 80 years old and can't get it up and no woman in her right mind wants him to. Pity the poor wife whose geezer husband wants to go at it for 4 hours....Worst they do to guys is "chemical castration" for prostate cancer and now they've found -- that hasn't been necessary all along. More good news, in a few years an 80% effective drug may be on the market.

So don't blame McCain for this one: but it's a valid issue to raise during the entire healthcare debate but it's never been done. Meanwhile, challenge your doctors, don't accept anything they tell you without fully researching options. If you make a stink about sex and age discrimination, and refuse a procedure that would mentally cripple you, your insurer will give you what you need -- just keep looking til you find a sympathetic doctor. The insurance system IS driven by giving you the cheapest procedure for your problem, but YOU can be a very pro-active patient.

July 25, 2008 9:43 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

RIGHT. And Nobama isn't even REMOTELY scary, right? As they say, Nobama's "all sizzle, no steak." I supported Hillary, but will definitely vote for McCain over what's-his-face. What IS scary is our midget mayor sucking up to Nobama ... he's SO far up there, that all you can see are his big feet hanging out of Nobama's butt

July 25, 2008 9:51 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

9:51

Better that MAV is up Nobama's butt, than in some other part of Mirthala.

Maybe he'll get some federal funds for the city. LOL!

July 25, 2008 10:20 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Um, meet my litle friend, www.factcheck.org from the nonpartsan Annenerg Intitute

McCain had good reason to be flustered. The premise of the reporter's question is a myth. We couldn't find any data that show a disparity between health insurance companies that cover Viagra and those that cover birth control. The full range of contraceptives, in fact, are covered by more than 86 percent of private insurance plans written for employers.

Armed Liberal

July 25, 2008 10:27 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Personally, I don't even see Nobama's "sizzle." He ain't no JFK.

And, what experience does he have? He's never even run a LAW FIRM, let alone a state.

Therefore, he is NOT QUALIFIFED to be president. He hasn't even run a restaurant!!!

July 25, 2008 10:30 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The sad thing is that whether it is Obama or McCain there might have to be more taxation to get us out of the incredible deficit Bush put us in. Either that, or more cuts for various services (hopefully they'll make those cuts int he right places).

July 26, 2008 12:23 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Take your liberal bias and shove it; Obama will not be President.

Did you ever hear of the Bradley-Warner effect?

Go look it up.

July 26, 2008 3:38 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Why do you bother to preach to the choir? California will go for Obama. That's a given. Fortunately - California will have no effect on who will be the next President. If you're as angry as I am, vote Libertarian or Green or whatever - just not D or R!
If all Californians voted as their conscious dictated, it would send a message. We really don't have any affect what-so-ever on the election. McCain isn't that bad and a democratically controlled congress will keep him in check. I do not want one party to control everything be it D or R. At least he has a track record and is more pragmatic that the current resident of the White House. Obama??? Who knows. No one can get by his handlers. And He is no JFK.

July 26, 2008 8:08 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

It's not about where McSame stands on the issue, it's should the government force private businesses to do something.
  
If every woman that has insurance with a company that won't cover birth control leaves the companies will lose money. Then in order to make money will cover birth control.
  
Simple.
  
Free market.
  
Which explains why my ratburger stand out of the trunk of my Pinto never made money.

July 26, 2008 1:04 PM  

Blogger Michael Higby said:

If you liked James Earl Carter, you'll LOVE Barack Hussein Obama!

July 26, 2008 1:13 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

James Earl Carter was light years better than George Walker Bush --- so in that regards, I'd gladly take Barack Hussein Obama over John Sidney McCain III

July 26, 2008 3:39 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The term Bradley effect or (less commonly) the Wilder effect refers to an explanation advanced as the possible cause of a phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate.

Specifically, there were instances in which such elections saw the non-white candidate significantly underperform with respect to the results predicted by pre-election polls.

Researchers who studied the issue theorized that some white voters gave inaccurate polling responses because of a fear that by stating their true preference, they might appear to others to be racially prejudiced. This theory suggested that statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but that those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the non-white candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate.

The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well. Some research suggested that the race of the pollster conducting the interview factored into voters' concerns. But some pollsters expressed doubts altogether that deliberately false answers from white voters being polled has been the cause of the polling errors in question. At least one prominent researcher has suggested that with regard to pre-election polls, the discrepancy can be traced in part by the polls' failure to account for general conservative political leanings among late-deciding voters.

July 26, 2008 4:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Luv YUH!
Luv YUH!
Luv YUH!

July 26, 2008 4:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

My HMO won't cover birth control pills and it covers Viagra. I believe all health care policies should cover both.

We need socialized medicine!

Barack will win. Even without Ohio. He'll be the first president to win without winning Ohio. I'm not 100%, but I'm 99% sure that NO president has ever become president of the United States of America if they lost Ohio. Obama will be the first one ever AND he'll be the first black president.

July 26, 2008 4:19 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Higby:

Why don't you use McCain's middle name too? This wouldn't have anything to do with racism would it?

July 26, 2008 6:43 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

10:31

Since when is having experience "running something" a prerequisite for running for president?

I don't recall JFK, LBJ, Nixon, or Ford running anything. Ford never advanced beyond the House of Reps.

July 26, 2008 6:50 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

4:19 says "We need socialized medicine," and thinks that's a helpful argument for supporting Obama. Just shows how far to the left most Obots are -- although even he's not dumb enough to be shilling for socialized medicine. Why that would be disastrous is another whole, long thread that can't be addressed here, in a blog abounding with haikus and psychpathically egotistic, rude and obnoxious Madd Dogg and Dutchmen.

July 27, 2008 7:07 AM  

Anonymous Dutch girl said:

I never said that Obama should adopt socialized medicine. I said we NEED socialized medicine. We do and I believe that.

July 29, 2008 11:22 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement