Disqus - Latest Comments for StockBoySF

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

StockBoySF — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:54:36 -0000

Why should some medical conditions be covered by health insurance while other medical conditions not be covered by health insurance?

Erectile dysfunction is a medical condition. As such I think the drugs which treat it should be covered by insurance. The benefits of sexual intercourse are numerous, not just for immediate pleasure. Sexual intercourse relieves stress, brings us closer to other people, makes us happier people and sometimes results in pregnancies and births of beautiful people. How many of us have ever said (or thought), "He (or she) needs to get laid?" I hope most of us realize that sex is not just about immediate gratification, at least not all the time.

Which of these benefits are not worthy of treatment?

AustinRoth's original comment nailed it on the head.... Sex isn't just about a man getting it up for his pleasure alone; it takes two to tango. How many of us, men and women, would be grumpy, or irritated if our partner (male or female) could never again have sex with us? If your partner said they could never have sex with you again, would you just accept it or would you try to find a treatment?

As far as the pure pleasure aspect.... Doesn't medicine exist to make our lives more comfortable? Who among us have NEVER seen a doctor for a cold or flu or headaches? Sometimes we go to doctors knowing full and well that we will recover from a nasty flu or cold but there are drugs that we can take which will help us recover faster and make us feel better. If people do not believe that ED should be covered because ED is not a "medical necessity", meaning it is not a life or death situation, then where do we draw the line in providing treatment for other non life-threatening situations which people regularly expect their doctors to treat?

And of course there are some people who do abuse Viagra. But many other drugs are abused, too. So should we not cover the cost of any drug which might be abused? No. It is up to the doctor to provide an accurate diagnosis. Drugs which treat erectile dysfunction are like any other drug used for any other medical condition.

Re: Why Should Public Dollars Pay for the Vanity of Old Men?

StockBoySF — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:51:31 -0000

I think insurance should cover Viagra. The only reason for sex is heterosexual reproduction. Therefore when sex occurs it's to bring forth another human life, a basic human right. It is going against God's will to deny a man from having sex and bringing more children into this world. ;)

Re: Obama will cruise to 2012 re-election

StockBoySF — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:47:48 -0000

"So, I say to people, anyone who thinks that Barack Obama isn’t kind of odds on, for re-election, must not think we’re going to come out of this recession."

The Republicans don't want Obama to succeed because if he does then he will be re-elected. If the Republicans continue with their obstructionist ways and spreading of fear to prevent Obama from succeeding then they may have a chance at regaining power. Though quite frankly what scares me is that they do not know what their principles are. I have no idea what the Republican Party stands for these days. They say one thing, but do another. And being obstructionists purely for the good (or even possible good) of their party at the expense of the whole country is not a principle I have.

Re: When A Boy Wears A Skirt to School

StockBoySF — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:19:12 -0000

My two years of Catholic high school apparently were very different than ProdElwood's. There were exclusive clicks left and right, which were far more intense than the public schools I had attended before. Some clicks didn't bother to even find out if someone "belonged" in their click. Anyone who wasn't already in their click wasn't even talked to.

I absolutely hated those uniforms. I think kids should be given the freedom to express and find themselves.

It would have been much more productive if the administration had put half as much energy as they did enforcing the dress code into teaching the kids to respect others by encouraging everyone to work on projects amongst themselves, rather than simply with their best friends.

Re: Lieberman’s Ego and Cao’s Conscience

StockBoySF — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:50:27 -0000

So does this mean that Lieberman's conscience is the same as Republican principles; only around when they're handy?

Re: Republicans Disrupt Debate on House Floor

StockBoySF — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:08:59 -0000

AR, "Procedurally, when asking for unanimous consent motions or ammendmants, no speeches or oration is allowed."

Right, thanks. What makes the video difficult for me to interpret what's going on is whether the Democratic speakers who are being interrupted by the Republicans were proposing amendments or making speeches. At one point in the video a Dem asks if she has the right to say whatever it is she's saying and the chair says that she has such a right. I assume the chair knows the procedures. Thanks again.

Re: Republicans Disrupt Debate on House Floor

StockBoySF — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:01:09 -0000

AR, "Unless the taking of course is the taxpayers money. THAT they are very, very good at."

Hahaha. I got a good laugh at that. I seem to recall that when Bush took office he cut the taxes on the rich and then spent more money, including starting two wars without plan to pay for them. And It was the Bush the president and the Republican congress who expanded Medicare drug coverage, again increasing the national debt with no plan to pay for any of the additional Medicare costs.

I seemed to have read somewhere that part of the debate around the healthcare bill involved how to cover the costs, with certain sacrifices made to lower the costs. Not that it's perfect but at least there was debate around it....

So I guess the liberals are good at taking and spending the taxpayers money, whereas the Republicans are good at running up the national debt by running up spending and decreasing taxes.

Sort of makes both groups the same, as best I can tell.

Re: Republicans Disrupt Debate on House Floor

StockBoySF — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:52:48 -0000

AR, "With the exception, of course, when the Democrats have done the exact same thing, or as they have done just now, used procedural methods to try and eliminate Republican time."

I agree that Dems are not perfect on this matter either and I don't watch enough of these debates to know if this is the norm or not.

WIth regards to the linked video, I did not see the Dems using procedural methods to try to eliminate Republican time. What I saw was Democrats trying to speak and Republicans not letting them, clearly using obstructionist methods.

Re: Republicans Disrupt Debate on House Floor

StockBoySF — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:43:58 -0000

Leonidas, "And you seem to hold the view that the taxpayer should be stuck with the bill for the consequences of a woman's voluntary sexual practices and fund abortion." And then:

"So drinking is legal, want to have your taxes used to give aspirin to poor people if they get a hangover from drinking too much? Maybe we should pay for their car to be repaired if they get drunk and wreck their car? Why stop with just irresponsible actions that have pregnancy as a result?"

If we were all perfect we wouldn't have health issues, accidents or the need for health insurance. What makes some actions, voluntary or not, and some people, wealthy or not, more entitled to health insurance? You seem to be saying that abortions resulting from woman having unprotected sex should not be covered by insurance. You also seem to be saying that aspirin given to poor people who drink too much and get hangovers should not be covered. To be clear I don't think aspirin should be covered in this situation, but I am curious why you choose the word "poor" people. It seems that you believe some people are more entitled to healthcare than other people.

The whole point I'm making is why should we have carve outs of "voluntary" and "involuntary" and certain procedures? What about a depressed person who jumps off a bridge in an unsuccesful suicide attempt and winds up in intensive care? Since the decision to jump was "voluntary" are you saying that treatment should not be covered by insurance for that person, like the woman who "voluntarily" choose to have unprotected sex which resulted in a pregnancy? What about auto accidents? If you wrapped your car around the tree because you took your eye off the road to change the radio station do you think that should be covered by health insurance? Following your logic about not funding abortions, it was you who did the stupid thing, so why should we all pay your stupidity?

The America I want to see is an America where we are enlightened enough and caring enough about the well being of others to meet their needs without judgement. We are all equal and we should all have healthcare to be there for whatever health needs we have. I disagree with those people who sit in their little castles waving their sticks around who say someone doesn't deserve healthcare (or covereage for certain procedure) because, "that person is too poor" or "that person is undeserving because their skin color" or "that person made a poor decision". I believe in a compassionate America, (compassionate having the original meaning of the word, and not the meaning that Republicans assigned to it under their faux "compassionate conservative" ideas).

Re: TMV blogger wins race, may be first to go from blogging to political office

StockBoySF — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:32:30 -0000

Wow, that's great! Congrats!

Re: Swine flu vaccine – the appearance of favoritism towards the wealthy

StockBoySF — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:38:12 -0000

DaGoat: "If you recall a couple of weeks ago people were afraid of side effects from the H1N1 vaccine and were questioning why Sasha and Malia hadn't received it. The WH response was because they were at low risk. Now in the next week they've received the vaccine even though their risk hasn't changed..."

I would like to add that this seems to be an example (with regards to Obama) of being damned if he does and damned if he does NOT do something....

As far as a change in the risk guidelines... I don't think we have the full story. Perhaps some of the girls' classmates (or their family members) came down with H1N1 and it was deemed prudent to innoculate the girls. Or perhaps it was determined by the WH staff that now was a good time to administer the vaccine.

But bottom line is you're right- not a big deal and we really don't want the first family (and potentially others in the WH) to get sick and spread this around. We have to remember that Obama meets leaders in the military, economy, world, etc. all day. The last thing we want is for the people who make decisions about national security (military, economic, etc) to be laid up in the hospital along with their staffs.

Re: Time to Stop Deciding Who “Won”

StockBoySF — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:28:51 -0000

I don't know who won, but I know the American people are losing.

Re: Swine flu vaccine – the appearance of favoritism towards the wealthy

StockBoySF — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:27:00 -0000

So why are people complaining? We don't have national healthcare and Americans don't want national healthcare. But they want to be treated as though they deserve the vaccine while others are less deserving.

If we had national healthcare and the vaccines were taken out of the healthcare system to treat the wealthy first, then that's where the story would be.

But until then, remember there are "haves and have-nots" in this country. Money talks and it's rarely fair. Many of those with little or no money will not even receive the vaccine.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

StockBoySF — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:59:54 -0000

ProfElwood- re your question on polygamy... Sure, why not? I don't believe in it myself since I am only interested in one person(call me old fashioned) but if others are happy with it, then they should go for it!

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

StockBoySF — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:09:17 -0000

Almoderate, off topic.... You've mentioned before that you were taught in Alabama public schools, even though Alabama public schools aren't exactly the best in the nation. I think your posts are always intelligent and moderate. I too had the benefit of a good solid Alabama public education (except for the last two years of high school, when I went to John Carroll Catholic in B'ham). When I read some of the comments on TMV or elsewhere, I know the person making those comments could have used a good solid Alabama education in public schools, too. I mean... basic stuff about the US and history that I learned in elementary school many people just don't seem to know. So thanks for all your thoughtful (and educated) comments. :)

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

StockBoySF — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:52:20 -0000

JD, "They wish to be elevated to the equivalent of a God-sanctioned "marriage". Well, sorry. God does not sanction marriage for the same sex."

Haha. Of course your god does not sanction marriage for the same sex. No one is disputing that. But your view of god is but one of many. There are other beliefs and religions out there and they do perform same-sex ceremonies when the law lets them. You're welcome to your views, but you're also forcing them on others, people you have never even met.

Also, "I do, however have a big problem with a subculture attempting to legitimize itself ..."

What about those marriage shows where people meet on TV and then get married... or those "quickie" marriages in Las Vegas. Those actions just denigrate marriage and straights should stop it, they're spitting on God and marriage in their pursuit of celebrity mentality. BTW: I don't see ANY gays engaging in such behavior.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

StockBoySF — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:42:07 -0000

AR (to FT): "Do you kiss when having sex?... No wonder you are so pissed off!"

As we know there are many ways to have sex. I (like others) can't help but be amused by FT's obsession with man to man butt sex.

Thanks!

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

StockBoySF — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:19:31 -0000

Father_Time: "I don't have to prove anything YOU DO."

OK, so what do I need to prove to you? Please let me know. Thanks.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

StockBoySF — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:16:41 -0000

The real perspective is that despite whatever the law and narrow-minded people say, the love of two people of the same-sex is just as equal and beautiful as the love in an opposite sex relationship.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

StockBoySF — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:10:28 -0000

JeffersonDavis, "Marriage is an institution sactified in religion. We cannot get away from that. If it is deemed legal by our government, it should be called civil union, and never to be forced to be performed in a Church."

I agree with you on that. A church should never be forced to perform ceremonies that go against its beliefs. However many churches do recognize same-sex marriages. The law (and people in Maine, as the latest example) prevent these religious groups from practicing their religious views.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

StockBoySF — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:49:07 -0000

Father_Time, "I think everyone understands that sexual behavior is not established before birth, which is laughable from the outset."

Haha. That's a laugh. What about personality? How is that established? Nature or nurture? I think it's a little bit of both, but mostly nature. The easiest examples are my two cats. I have a male and female. With regards to personality the male takes after his father and the female takes after the mom. But the only "input" the father cat had was to get the mother pregnant. Once the kittens were born the father cat was not around to influence their personalities. So it is with sexual attraction. Some people are attracted to the opposite sex, some to the same sex and some to both sexes.

Yes, we ALL have a choice of who we sleep with. I don't think you'd choose to sleep with your mother any more than I would choose to sleep with my father. But I choose to sleep with someone I am attracted to sexually. I assume you do the same thing. I don't think anyone chooses to sleep with someone they think is a dog. Do you ever think you could sleep with your mother or grandmother? If not, then why do you think gay guys (or lesbians) would force themselves to sleep with someone they do not naturally find attractive? I don't even know how I COULD sleep with someone I wasn't attracted to. Thankfully I like handsome men. It narrows down my choices of whom to sleep with. ;)

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

StockBoySF — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:32:56 -0000

Father_Time: "Sex is for procreation."

So how many children do you have? If sex is only for procreation, then I guess the number of children you have is roughly the same number of times you've had sex. But still we're looking at you having sex 20 times, tops? And if your wife can no longer have children- say she's over 45 or so, then I guess you've stopped having sex altogether, since "sex is for procreation".

Besides marriage is not just about sex. Marriage is spending one's life with someone they love and sex is one of many expressions of that love. Why doesn't it surprise me that a gay guy (me) has to point that out to you?

You know what I dislike most about the religious types who try to deny others what they themselves have? It's because they feel that they are so God dam% fu$%ing better than anyone else that no one else deserves to have what they have. They justify it by using religion, and if religion doesn't work then they use science and if they don't like that then they make stuff up, or just read only material they know will support their beliefs, any alternative theory be dam$ed.

Well it's nice to know there's this whole group of people who have no health issues whatsoever (and will never have health issues), people who have lived by the Bible and have never sinned. People who would, if asked by God, are willing to kill their children. Oh and part of being perfect means having no problems- no financial worries, no problems with friendships or loved ones and never an angry voice. So please let me know the title of your book to happiness so I can buy it and give up my slightly flawed life and emulate your life of utmost perfection. I want to be just as good as you so I can enjoy all the rights you have, oh most perfect one.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

StockBoySF — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:09:06 -0000

JeffersonDavis, "You don't leave your entire being or character outside when you step into the voting booth. Your beliefs go in with you."

You're correct, unfortunately. In this case your beliefs tell you that it is fine to take the rights of others away, rights you do not think others should have. Does it affect you personally if you can or can not marry another man? No. So why do you believe that people have the right to vote on that which doesn't affect them? In this case it's a right to marry the person we love and want to spend the rest of our life with. You are wrong to tell me I can not do that. How would you like it if I told you that you could not marry?

Re: Steele: GOP “Transcendent”

StockBoySF — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:25:20 -0000

LOL! Thanks, that was good. Please feel free to continue. :)

Re: You Mean, There’s More Than One Bill Ayers? There’s More Than One Jeremiah Wright?

StockBoySF — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:14:13 -0000

AR, well... as far as some of your views go.... you just need to agree with me more! But I understand that no one's perfect. ;) Thanks and take care.