[jackfoxy]

I don't want to ding a politician for doing the right thing, but Issa is also a sponsor of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act, (co-sponsored with a Democrat, btw) so this looks more like an act of political grand-standing than political idealism.

[nextparadigms]

He was also one of the key Congressmen fighting against SOPA. I think Issa is generally a good guy, who just like any other politician (except Ron Paul) can be swayed by lobby money to support a certain bill that in the end the public might not like.

It's not that different than Al. Franken supporting net neutrality, only to become a strong supporter of PIPA later on. Although, I'm not sure Al Franken ever was a good guy. Perhaps he was just generally for more Government control of the Internet - which I guess net neutrality could be part of that.

Either way, the core problem still seems to be how campaign financing works right now, getting politicians desperate for campaign money, and ending up supporting bills that may or may not be compatible with their own ideals.

[nyellin]

He also led the all-male congressional hearings against contraception. I support most of his opinions, but I wish I could elect politicians with authority in specific fields only.

[Joakal]

You're thinking of liquid democracy if you want to demand that from your representatives.

[anamax]

> He also led the all-male congressional hearings against contraception.

The hearings weren't "against contraception". They were about whether the current status quo, where certain institutions aren't required to pay for contraception, can continue to do so.

Also, the panels weren't weren't all male - there were women on the second panel from Catholic schools supporting the "religious freedom" position.

And no, contraception isn't anywhere near $1000/year. Walmart charges $4/month while Target and CVS charge $9. Even at $20/month, we're looking at less than $250/year. (The required medical appointment is already covered so it doesn't need to be added.) IUDs and the like are less.

Condoms don't account for the difference. Yes, you can pay $1 each, but if you're going through $750/year, you should be buying multi-condom packages. Amazon charges $0.14-$0.30 for small packages.

Then again, the person claiming to spend $1000 is a lawyer-wanna-be, so maybe she's engaged in creative billing.

[burgerbrain]

Condoms are almost completely irrelevant. A primary issue is women being prescribed contraceptives for medical conditions other than preventing pregnancy. Contraceptives like "the pill" contain powerful and varying hormone cocktails which have numerous uses. Different brands/types contain different cocktails at different doses, meaning that the situation is not as simple as "just get the cheap one". The particular one that works for that use is prescribed, which most certainly can be 1000USD/year.

[anamax]

> A primary issue is women being prescribed contraceptives for medical conditions other than preventing pregnancy.

A "primary issue"? No. Most contraceptives are used for preventing pregnancy.

However, the "other conditions" case IS covered, and this wasn't about that.

> The particular one that works for that use is prescribed, which most certainly can be 1000USD/year.

The question is never "how much can you get someone to pay" but "how little can be paid".

Walmart sells multiple varieties, so citation needed that $1k/year is at all reasonable.

[burgerbrain]

The primary issue, not the primary use of birth control. Though I suspect you would be surprised by a breakdown.

"However, the "other conditions" case IS covered, and this wasn't about that."

Depending on the organisation, it often times it is not. That is why the issue has been in the news so much recently.