If your parents/mate is dieing, if you have cancer, if you want to have a baby, FMLA gives you limited time off WITH OUT pay, so what good is FMLA? All it promises is that your job will still be their after the baby is born, as long as you take no more than 12 weeks off, it promises your job will be their after the cancer treatment....

It is not unlimited time, but it is to go to your parents funeral if you have to travel, or medical treatments - of you, parents, spouse or kids. Nothing else.

Remember Americans don't get much vacation, two weeks a year is the norm. If you have to use it up with sick time, or traveling for funerals you could easily lose a job. FMLA protects you from that, barely. American's unlike Europeans don't have much job security, and can lose jobs with little or no warning. If not for FMLA the birthrate would probably drop below Italy & Japans - since no one could afford to have kids, since without FMLA they'd all lose their jobs, if they gave birth or got sick.

But listen to this board, the amount of time granteed by FMLA is to much, look at how entitled all those hairy leg feminazies are demanding the right to return to work after giving birth or having cancer. How dare they?!! After those 12 weeks of precious time make all the difference in the world and justify the pay difference between men and women. And justify being held back from a promotion, because 12 weeks is to long!!!! Don't you Europeans just envy our generous benefits?

Insurance won't pay for birth control, they won't pay for the abortion, and they won't pay for the 18yrs of child care either. (Oh, and most plans don't cover 100% of the pregnancy either, with co-pays and different limits - like how many pre-natal visits you can have)

But hay, viagra no problem. Look at the boardroom of your insurance company, all middle aged white guys, probably with younger wives and second families. And hardcore Christians. Now that is values in action.

If it is a male sexual issue, it is covered, if it is a female one, its not... see how simple it is .. and most plans do cover vasectomies.. which company is it that is not? (ie who was named in the lawsuit?) Because I've never heard of insurance not covering that procedure before. (Heard of doctors not willing to do it on young guys, but not that the insurance wouldn't pay for it)

"erectile dysfunction" never killed anyone.

Being pregnant can. Erectile dysfunction while terrible for the one suffering, the level of their suffering doesn't come up to the possibly life threatening complications a pregnant woman goes through, much less the permanent changes that even the most average and safe pregnancy it puts a woman through.

All comments on viagra not equaling birthcontrol. Viagra increases the need for women to need birthcontrol. And lets get real, what percentage of men taking viagra really need it vs using it as a recreational drug? With all the illnesses out there that the drug industry went after - did they go after life threatening or any other criteria other than they knew the off label uses of viagra would make them rich? Not that it would actually help people facing a painful or terrible illness. Why because men's sexual issues are safe (ie religious right doesn't protest) and socialable exceptable. But anything about womens sexuality has the opposite affect.

Also having worked for Blue Cross in Oregon, their decisions to not cover birth control, abortions and other womens problems was not based on science, or profits, but on the morality of the people in charge. Because if a customer gets pregnant it cost them a lot more, if only because now they have an extra person on the rolls. Money was not the bases of the decisions. It is the insurance companies imposing their views on their clients, who don't get to choose their provider - since their employers choose for them. They only cover these items when a large employer (ie major policy holder insist on them after a big fight at the negation table, bet they never argued over the coverage of viagra!)

This is why it is unfair. Not because viagra is equal to birth control, but because a bunch of guys decided viagra was ok to cover, but not birth control based on their personal religious views, not economics, not statistics , not what was best for the insurance companies.

Also alot of pills cost up to 70$ a month (if you are a woman who can't just take any of the pills, but need to care about the different dosages) And what a class based comment, so all poor women smoke? Bullshit, 70$ , 40 or 30 dollars a month is a budget killer for a lot of people, including middle class appearing folks, college kids ....and hey non-smokers.

Just because it doesn't seem like a lot of money to you, it doesn't make you a superior person.