Bill O’Reilly: Consumate Ladies Man.

OK, listen up. Viagra is used to help a medical condition. That’s why it’s covered. Birth control is not a medical condition. It is a choice. Why should I or anybody else have to pay for other people’s choices? Do I have to buy you dinner before you use the birth control?

I see. Having sex is not a choice. Getting pregnant is. Geez, it’s not like they are related or anything. I mean one is for allowing a minority of men to have sex, the other is for allowing a majority of women to have sex. IT IS LIKE APPLES AND ORANGES! Bonus points, for the the “joke” in the last sentence. Hi-la-ri-ous.

Hey, if the last time you got a boner was while on the phone, fantasizing about falafels, and harassing an employee, you’d be bitter too.

Via Think Progress.


6 Responses

  1. This is why Uncle Bill is on my top ten list of favorite d-bags.

  2. Um, WTF?

    Birth control controls birth rates. Viagra controls dick rising. Not the same and they really have nothing to do with each other.

    Nevertheless, the cost of Viagra on public health dollars is more offensive than the nominal cost of “the Pill”.

    And furthermore, why stop there? Pregnancy is not a medical condition per se. Why should I pay for infertility, Bill?!! And liver and kidney donations? Fack that. I shouldn’t have to pay for that either. What about heart attacks. Geez.

    I hate BO!!!!

  3. I’ve been ranting about this ever since I had to provide a doctor’s note to my insurance company stating that I was going on the pill for medical reasons, not for contraception. (I have a different insurance company nowadays, but sheesh.)

    Covering Viagra but not the pill basically says it’s okay for men to fuck like bunnies, but it’s not okay for women.


  4. Yeah, the point I was trying to make (no idea how well I managed to communicate it) is as follows:
    Viagra gives its user (Male with ED problems) the ability to have sex.
    Birth control gives its user (Female who doesn’t want to get pregnant) the ability to have sex.

    Now, you could argue that Social Security should not “waste” money on allowing people to have sex. As that is not a medical urgency. Personally, I disagree. I think Social Security should look after its citizens’ well being. Sex life included.

    But if you allow for viagra, it is nothing but discriminating against non clowncar-vagina enthusiasts to fund male pills but not female ones.

  5. Well social secuity is unlikely to be covering birth control pills given that most women 65 plus are post menopausal.

    And both viagra and child birth cost me more on medicaid, medicare and insurance dollars than the nominal fee of birth control. A few that dropped after states like MA and NY said it would be covered. Interesting that price drops when the gov’t gets involved…

  6. Damn Lauren.

    In Oregon, Insurance companies are required to cover contraception.

    Anyway, expecting logical thought out of Bill O’Reilly is rather like expecting a dog not to lick his ass.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: