Bill bans payment for lifestyle drugs (Viagra)

[shawn703]

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has introduced legislation to prohibit Medicare and Medicaid from paying for lifestyle drugs, such as Viagra.

Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicare and Medicaid funding, was moved to action after the New York comptroller announced Medicaid paid for erectile dysfunction drugs, such as Viagra, Cialis and Levitra, for convicted sex offenders.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated Medicare and Medicaid would spend $2 billion on these lifestyle drugs between 2006-2015, including through the new Medicare prescription drug benefit that begins in January 2006.


more...
http://upi.servehttp.com/view.php?itemid=UPI-20050525-12504200

[BR_Parkway]

1. Thank you. I want gov't out of my bedroom and I don't want to be

paying for anyone else's erections.

[Megahurtz]

13. True.

We shouldn't be paying for anyone's erections.

If they have a personal problem, then they need to come up with their own solutions.
Getting their hard-ons paid for while people in dire need of financial help towards their own health care
do without!!!

Maybe some of those Fundamentalists won't be too happy about this one!....:rofl:

[renaissanceguy]

76. Can fundies even get erections?

I like to think that they are the way they are because they don't get any.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/537124

[hippiechick]

2. AMEN !

... it has never, ever, never made a stitch of sense to me why they'd cover men's impotence drugs, but not cover birth control which is essentially a logical outcropping of what will happen if men have access to Viagra et al.

[HockeyMom]

6. Totally agree

[hippiechick]

7. Love your screen name !

:hi: Hockey Rocks !!! :yourock:

[JDPriestly]

9. They should cover both.

For most people, a healthy sex life is essential to a healthy life. Older men who have sex more often have less incidence of certain cancers I believe. I want my man to live long and be healthy. Let him have Viagra if he needs it for a healthy life. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Chicago Democrat]

29. They should cover both. The best anwer. Putting energy towards

taking away medicine from people who need it hurts the liberal cause and helps Rove.

Its a Rovian tactic to divide us based on this very thing.


I would at least point out that at the very least Viagra cures a disease. Erectile dysfunction. Apparently 51% of my liberal colleagues don't see this as a very important disease/syndrome/side effect of other medicine as worthy of any medicine. Or that that medicine is somehow "optional". Hey One Breat is there, the other one is just optional.

[the_spectator]

30. How is "erectile dysfunction" a "disease"?

Where's the bacterium that causes it? Where's the virus? Everything's a "disease" now lol.

Also, am I not correct in stating that the term "erectile dysfunction" was only recently INVENTED by marketing types to be able to push Viagra, Levitra, etc. on the public without the stigma of the word "impotence". And the beauty part of this Madison Avenue neologism is that the superlatively annoying woman on the Levitra ads doesn't even have to say "erectile dysfunction" -- now, its just "E.D."

[Chicago Democrat]

34. Erectile Dysfunction is a Dysfunction is a Disease!

Perhaps the word is newly coined but the problem is as old as sin.

Its a disease. As much as say a broken arm is a disease. Shall we call it a physical trauma? Less than a brain injury but worse than an ingrown toenail.

Its a disgusting topic. I hate the commercials. All drug ads need to be banned. Lets keep medicine between the doctor and the pateint and have ONE RULE FOR EVERYBODY.


I have actively supported health care reforn .Universal health care is my goal.But I'm finding it distracting constantly fighting with fellow liberals (my guess all women in this cause) about issues that Republicans (Grassly R) introduced in order to cause an argument amoung liberals.

[LiberallyInclined]

62. but there's also a fairly simple cure-

have someone kiss it to make it better.

[Megahurtz]

51. Lol!

Perfect!:D

[Warpy]

3. Personally, I think they belong with other vanity drugs

like Botox and Minoxidil, given with a physician's guidance but not paid for out of the public till unless there is a compelling reason to do so, one that will pass muster with second opinions within the payment program.

That's just me, though.

[u4ic]

43. Botox is often used for people with muscle disorders as well

FYI :-)

[Zookeeper]

4. I've read that Medicare has been paying for Viagra...

for 189 sex offenders in NY (with victims as young as 2 years old).

Here's a link:

http://abcnews.go.com/us/wirestory?id=781253

[Megahurtz]

8. RAALLPH!!!

:puke: That's really fucked up.

[Chicago Democrat]

32. Then ban that.

What about the 1 million (a guess) non-sexual offenders on Medicaid/Medicare that have a medical problem. Why is inability to have sex any different that the inability to speak, or see?

[madhat]

5. Will they consider the birth control pill "lifestyle"?

If so, this means war....

[shawn703]

10. I thought they already didn't cover it? n/t

[LostinVA]

24. They don't n/t

[JDPriestly]

61. Depends on where you are.

I think they have to cover it in California, but I might be mistaken.

[Piperay]

11. Good

there are people dying cause they can't afford life-saving drugs. Disgraceful that the government would cover a drug just for a guy to get a boner.

[JDPriestly]

12. This is another attack on the privacy of

a person's relationship with their physician. What medicine a doctor prescribes should be left up to the doctor and the patient as much as possible. This is the same basic issue as abortion. Do you think medically prescribed abortions should be paid for by the government?

[Not Me]

14. JD, you took the words out of my mouth

n/t

[Xithras]

15. Medically prescribed? Yes. Selective? No.

If a person is on public assistance and a doctor prescribes an abortion for health reasons, then yes, the government should cover that medical procedure like they would any other.

If a person is on public assistance and they want a selective abortion simply because they don't want a child, then no...the government shouldn't pay for it. It isn't the governments duty to pay for "lifestyle" procedures. No plastic surgery, no selective abortions, and no Viagra.

[Megahurtz]

16. Good Post.

:)

[Chicago Democrat]

23. How about a 18 Year old disabled person on Medicaid whose

married and can't pro-create without it. Nor have children Or be happy or feel like a full human being without being about to have sex with his wife with he can't with out viagra.


How about an 18yo Depressed Bipolar individual whose antidepression drugs have tremendous side effects including sexual side effects. What about that? is this some 'lifestyle'choice equivelent to "plastic surgery"!

I'm its just completely over the top to link abortion (has totally different issues and I can't see any relationship to Viagra) to either plastic surgery. What about car crash victims? Don't they have a right to have a face? or a penis? That works? Might need viagra for that.

As for me I believe in universal health care were the govt takes on big Medicine and the Drug companies and compells THEM to act within the Hipocratic oath,


Its a really, really, really slippery slope and is simply a Rovian tactic to divide people. See through it, fellow liberal.

[Iowa]

58. Yep, you're exactly right...

This whole discussion reminds me of one tactic that is used to drive down wages for public employees. The scheme involves getting private sector workers, who generally make less, to turn on their public sector counterparts. These are jealousy driven/wedge tactics. Pretty soon it's a race to the bottom. Republicans and corporate managers are masters at this.

The same applies to health care. We should focus on improving the lot of everyone instead of expressing outrage that some are getting more. Instead of saying that no Medicare recipient should get Viagra, we should be insisting that everyone have the same access to the drug if they need it.

Many people have absolutely no access to comprehensive health care, and I'm sure Grassley and company would like nothing more than to scam us into turning our focus toward some poor bastard getting Viagra - like we can address the monumental health care fiasco in this country by taking away someone's Viagra. Sleazebags like Charles Grassley want us to gouge each other's eyes out fighting over a few scraps they throw out. To hell with them! This country can provide health care for all - and include Viagra (and many other things) in the process.

[Xithras]

59. You're mixing medical neccesity and selective surgery

Reconstructive surgery is not "selective", it's rebuilding tissues damaged by an accident or disease. There is a world of difference between a woman getting breast implants because she wants bigger boobs, and a woman getting breast implants because she had a full mastectomy and lost a part of her body.

Basically, if you need the drug or surgery to live a NORMAL, HEALTHY, and TYPICAL life, then you should get it. If you want a medicine or a procedure out of simple desire or convenience without a compelling medical need, or if you are simply trying to stave off the perfectly normal age progression of the human body, then you should have to pay for it yourself.

[JDPriestly]

63. I'm sorry. I did not make myself clear.

What the Viagra and abortion issues have in common is the right to privacy about your medical problems and your relationship with your doctor. I do not equate the Viagra and abortion. I believe that our relationships with our doctors and our medical problems and histories are very private. The government should not have that information unless we agree to give it to them. Therefore, both medically prescribed Viagra and medically indicated abortions should be completely private and the government should not be nosing into those personal matters.

As for paying for abortions, it is off subject, but I suspect many liberal women think that would be great, but don't want to pay for Viagra. Personally, I would want the government to pay for either if they medically indicated and neither if not medically indicated.

[JDPriestly]

45. Viagra should only be used if medically prescribed.

It is far less expensive than an abortion. Let's compare it more to birth control pills or devices. Of course, it should be prescribed. I just posted a message that gives information about the causes of impotence. Most people think it's all psychological. It isn't. Check out my other post and this website:


http://www.medicinenet.com/impotence_ed/page5.htm#cause

There are lots of other websites that explain this. My dad did not like to take his blood pressure medicine. I don't know why, but he said it was because of the side effects, and I suspect I know which one. If a Viagra prescription would have made him take his blood pressure medicine, I would have been very thankful, because he might have lived a lot longer. He was a wonderful man, and the world would have been a better place had he stayed around a few years longer.

[arikara]

69. What's a "selective abortion"?

So you're suggesting that if someone on public assistance can't afford an abortion, then the state picks up the tab for the care of the kid for the next 18 years?

[faithnotgreed]

21. when the doctors and pharmaceutical cos etc get out of their communal bed

then we can begin to talk about this with some degree of equity

these "lifestyle" drugs are basically just another con job bandaid that are pushed on people. doesnt anyone see that there are various and real medical (and sometimes psychological) reasons that men need a sexual aid? just another example of the fraud perpetrated by drug manufacturers and the physicians who take the money dispense the prescription and run

kinda like all these corporate reporters who have been exposed as taking money from this mal administration

and lets not even talk about how men are receiving this (and some definitely use it recreationally) yet women cannot get birth control covered? and what about all the thousands of people who are waiting for life saving treatment? children who are uninsured? this list could go on and on yet the govt will pay for men to use sex enhancing drugs

in what world does all this make sense? oh thats right....

eta: i believe that some drugs give invaluable help in some situations. but we are the most medicated country in the world and i just wish we could really talk about and tackle that issue instead of relying on the entire drug/insurance co/govt/physician inbreeding that we have in this country. when some important surgery is denied or health benefits are cut etc yet viagra is covered. that is something i just cant come to terms with. there is so much need in our society and in general the companies (and much of society) turn a blind eye if its not about a white middle class affliction.
end of rant...

[JDPriestly]

44. You have a point, but, rest assured,

sometimes Viagra is needed -- and even for some very young men. Like many other diseases, it should not be used when it isn't medically indicated, but there are cases in which it is properly prescribed. It is not just a white middle class affliction, and the need for it isn't just in the drug company's imagination. I suspect that the discovery of Viagra will lead to longer, happier lives for men. Why? Because impotence can be a common side effect of live lengthening medicines like some blood pressure and prostate medications. Men are less reluctant to take the healing medicine if the side effect does not interfere with their sex life. We'll see if I am right.

I remember hearing a woman in her late 50s railing about having to pay for the birth control pills of younger women when she paid her insurance. She said she didn't want to have to pay for her fun.


I thought she was a prude, and I think the same of people who oppose providing Viagra to the poor -- especially poor veterans. The attitudes I am seeing here on DU surprise me. Such a liberal website and such repressed and conservative ideas about sex. Maybe you are all just young. Fall in love. Get married. Grow old with the one you love, and you will see this issue differently.

Here is accurate information on impotence.

Sometimes impotence is psychological, but it is often caused by a physical disease or condition. Here is a list of things that can cause problems:

Damage to nerves, arteries, smooth muscles, and fibrous tissues, often as a result of disease, is the most common cause of ED. Diseases—such as diabetes, kidney disease, chronic alcoholism, multiple sclerosis, atherosclerosis, vascular disease, and neurologic disease—account for about 70 percent of ED cases. Between 35 and 50 percent of men with diabetes experience ED.

Also, surgery (especially radical prostate and bladder surgery for cancer) can injure nerves and arteries near the penis, causing ED. Injury to the penis, spinal cord, prostate, bladder, and pelvis can lead to ED by harming nerves, smooth muscles, arteries, and fibrous tissues of the corpora cavernosa.

In addition, many common medicines—blood pressure drugs, antihistamines, antidepressants, tranquilizers, appetite suppressants, and cimetidine (an ulcer drug)—can produce ED as a side effect.

Experts believe that psychological factors such as stress, anxiety, guilt, depression, low self-esteem, and fear of sexual failure cause 10 to 20 percent of ED cases. Men with a physical cause for ED frequently experience the same sort of psychological reactions (stress, anxiety, guilt, depression).

Other possible causes are smoking, which affects blood flow in veins and arteries, and hormonal abnormalities, such as not enough testosterone.

http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/kudiseases/pubs/impotence/

This website also has some real information:

http://www.medicinenet.com/impotence_ed/page5.htm#cause

Have some compassion for your dads (and moms).

[BattyDem]

17. I don't agree with this

A healthy sex life is important to overall good health as well as a healthy marriage and/or relationship. Viagra is prescribed by a doctor for a medical condition. It is not a "lifestyle" drug. True, there are young men who don't technically need it and use it for recreational purposes, but if they wish to cut down on that type of fraud, then set some kind of criteria for payment, such as requiring that two physicians deem the drug medically necessary if the patient is under age 40 and/or has no other health problems. They don't have to punish everyone because sex offenders are getting the drug for free, just stop paying for convicted sex offenders to get it. It's that simple. :eyes:

I also believe that birth control should be paid for. An unwanted pregnancy is not good for anyone's physical or mental health. I never understood why any insurance company was allowed to exclude contraception from their list of approved drugs, especially since birth control pills have other medical uses besides contraception.

Frankly, I think Medicare and Medicaid should pay for every drug. Doctors prescribe them for a reason - why should the government question that? And ... if they're going to question it, aren't they really saying that they don't trust the doctor's judgement? If that's the case, why are those doctor's allowed to practice medicine and/or receive payment from Medicare/Medicaid in the first place?

[sinkingfeeling]

22. And I believe doctors over prescribe drugs to all Americans. I'm

57 and every time I'm asked, "What medications are you taking?" and I reply, "None", they will ask again in disbelief, "You're not taking any prescription medications?"

I know it would be difficult to prove, but I still think that doctors get a kick-back for prescribing this crap. It was a different story when drug manufacturers were not allowed by law to advertise directly to the public. Now, every other TV commerical is for some drug. And people are going into doctors' offices and demanding that they write prescriptions for this and that. It all just drives the cost of medical care ever skyward as drug companies rake in $billions and spend hundreds of millions on advertising.

[Skittles]

38. I get the same response and I am only 48

I can't believe how many people actually buy the theory they need a freaking drug to fix every perceivable health issue.

[Megahurtz]

50. I Totally Agree!

There are many health conditions with which a person could look for alternative cures,
rather than a stupid pharmaceutical pill for every condition under the sun!

You want Viagra? That's fine. Go pay for it yourself.:)

[BattyDem]

52. Doctors definitely over-prescribe ...

and I think drug manufacturers should not be allowed to market prescription drugs directly to people. This entire country is over-medicated and those ads have a lot to do with it! They make people feel "comfortable" with prescription drugs, so they demand that their doctors prescribe them.

Just because your nose is stuffed that doesn't mean you need Flonase! Just because you're feeling down for a few days, that doesn't mean you need Zoloft! Just because you've had insomnia for a couple of nights, that doesn't mean you need Ambien! Those ads make people feel safe with drugs, when in fact, they could cause very serious side effects. A prescription is required FOR A REASON!

I know people who asked their doctors for medication for allergies, heartburn, body aches, etc. You know ... minor stuff. When I ask them if they tried over-the-counter products first, the answer is always, "Why should I waste time with those when I can get the 'good' medication from my doctor?" Of course, they always swear to their doctors that they've tried everything and "nothing worked" which is why they need the prescription. :eyes:


However, just because doctors over-prescribe, that doesn't mean the government should be deciding what conditions are worth treating. Erectile Dysfunction is a legitimate medical problem. Why shouldn't someone be able to get treatment for it? Human sexuality is not a choice, it's a fact of life. Just like birth control - they say the government shouldn't pay because having sex is a choice. So ... if you can't afford birth control or Viagra, then you don't get to have sex? That's nice ... sex is now for the "rich" - poor people can go without. :eyes:

[Triana]

18. Excellent!

I had just said yesterday Medicare/Caid should not be paying for this crap.

[BiggJawn]

19. Hope they don't rule Metformin as a "Lifestyle Drug"

"lifestyle drug"...just WTF is THAT media-invented, RW-approved label supposed to mean?

I suppose you could stretch that to include damn near ANY drug.

You take Metformin and Actos for your Diabetes? Fuck you, if you hadn't "chosen" the unhealthy "lifestyle" of poor nutrition and obesity, you probably wouldn't BE Diabetic. No Drugs for YOU!

You need the "cocktail" for your HIV? Oh....You wanna talk about a "LIFESTYLE" here....Get Out!

Need Statins? See the comments for the Diabetics. No Lovastatin for YOU!

Depressed? What the fuck you got to be DEPRESSED about? Bush WON! Freedom's on the MARCH! Scratch it and Get Glad, kid...No Paxil for YOU!

Hot flashes? You got hot flashes, lady? Then open the fucking window. It's cheaper than HRT. Sex with your boyfriend's painful? well, ever think you might be too OLD for that foolishness? No Estrace for YOU!

But I'm SURE there's plenty of so-called "Librals" who'd think it a huge fucking joy-ride to throw themselves down THIS slippery slope....

[Chicago Democrat]

27. This one, Marijuana issues MAJOR divisive issues for Democrats

Lets not fall for these Rovian tactics

[BiggJawn]

47. IMO, the world would probably be a better place...

If EVERYONE was able to blow some Boo.

I think the REAL ISSUE here should be WHY women cannot get Contraception paid for. Period.

The rest is bullshit, and anyone who says "A Boner is NOT needed for Life" must hate Government funding for the Arts, too. You don't NEED Art to LIVE, right?

And how about PBS? Your precious little Golden Children don't NEED "Sesame Street" to fulfill their destiny of either GOP cannon fodder or Walmart Associate, either...

But BONER PILLS?
Horrors!

[JDPriestly]

65. I agree with you.

"Lifestyle drug" can mean a lot of things. How about drugs for lung cancer for people who choose to smoke? I certainly think it is appropriate to pay for cancer treatments even if the sufferers brought the disease upon themselves. How about liver transplants for alcoholics -- and other medications related to alcoholism. Oh and -- the monster problem for doctors -- drug addicts who haunt doctors' offices hopping from office to office to feed their habits -- and who make doctors' lives miserable. Doctors choose their profession because they love to help people and alleviate suffering, then they have to say no to these drug-addicts who become pests and problems to them. The doctors who deal with this problem feel torn because they know the addicts are killing themselves with the drugs, but also that the addicts really feel pain when they can't get the drugs. Guess who ends up paying for that stuff -- whether it is the government or a private health insurer, it's the non-drug-abusers who pay.

Most young people don't need or take medications. I certainly didn't until I was over 55. But you would be surprised what little genetic surprises you will discover in your body once you get into your late 50s and 60s -- strange conditions you never heard of that you have been carrying around with you since birth. And all of the sudden one of them introduces itself to you up close and personal. Thank God, we have medicines that can make life worth living in spite of these things.

Oh, and arthritis, nearly everyone gets it. Low weight and exercise will delay it, but too much exercise isn't good for it. Wait till it hits you. Much as I agree with you that the pharmaceuticals oversell medicines, you will learn to appreciate modern medicine one day. Trust me. Including Viagra if you are one of the unlucky ones who needs it.

[BiggJawn]

73. Exactly.

I forgot about Arthritis. That one hasn't hit me yet. Of course, neither has impotence, but I ain't gettin' any younger, y'know...

I suspect that everyone here who is outraged that their tax dollars are buying Gramps a boner would have no problem with getting Old Smokey her Chemo for her lung cancer. Why? Both conditions are brought about by "choices". Smokey smoked all her life, and Gramps "chooses" to get a woody.

It's the Penis. People hate Penises.

[Chicago Democrat]

20. Major Overreaction...

Some people especially old people need these drugs and they are no different that any other drugs. Folks this is divide and conquer when everyone is all in other people's medical business.

[customerserviceguy]

25. Maybe the feds

should pay for my coffee, I'm a bear without it!

No, I don't expect the government to pay for my coffee, my beer, my wine, my medical marijuana, or my boner drugs. I'd rather they spent the money on the Pill for poor women, and vaccines for children. I'll buy my own recreational drugs, thanks.

[Chicago Democrat]

26. I thought reproductive organs were for reproducing...

not just a happy fun stick.


Viagra is not like Coffee, nor beer!, or wine! Or pot!


Its a medicine for erectile dysfunction and has a medically specific purpose. Believe or not most boners occur without it!


So my mom for example is retarded and bipolar and happens to also be sexually active, but say she was a guy and the anti-depressant drugs they give him to keep him from killing himself have side effects so that he literally can't have an erection. On Medicaire a disabled person gets all of $600 per month and maybe $100 in food stamps. They also get their medicine paid for...


So YOU want to take away this persons ONLY POSSIBILITY for sexual relations.


Are you a liberal? Perhaps you haven't thought it all the way through.

[customerserviceguy]

33. So, you'd OK Viagra

but only if the patient plans on reproducing? Sounds like a Republican idea to me.

And yes, I know most boners occur without it. All of mine have, so far. And when I have to "get by with a little help from my friends", then I should be paying for it, and save the limited pool of drug money for things like your mom's bipolar meds.

What would be tragic to me is the people who don't qualify for Medicare bipolar meds, because the money's going off to finance erections. If there were plenty of money for both, I say, fine, but at that point, I want at least my medical marijuana, because the arguments you make for Viagra for a bipolar guy would also apply to some hash so that he gets an appetite and eats enough to keep from wasting away.

As a matter of fact, I'd supply Medicaid medical marijuana BEFORE I'd pay for happy fun stick stiffeners. How liberal does that make me?

[Chicago Democrat]

36. I didn't say that. It was only one realistic example...

and reread your post. Its unworthy of any response.




I guess school or reading wasn't your strong point?

[Megahurtz]

54. Uh, I don't know......

laptoprepairguy sounds pretty intelligent to me!:)

[the_spectator]

42. You've got it right.

Why should Viagra be subsidized so that people can get their jollies by having recreational sex, while Marijuana is illegal? Why can't I get a doctor to prescribe marijuana for me, and then get the government to pay for it -- after all, I want it for the exact same reason someone else wants Viagra -- for jollies! For happiness!

Why not? Because there is really only ONE "established religion" today in our society - the Religion of Sex. D.H. Lawrence has a lot to answer for!

[Megahurtz]

53. Yeah, and the Government should

pay for my beer too!!!:beer: Why should I pay for my own beer huh?:shrug:

It makes me really happy! and I get really cranky and depressed if I don't get my beer!!!;(

:sarcasm:

[the_spectator]

28. Hear, hear -

There is no reason the government should be paying for Viagra.
What is that old phrase from the Bible? "To everything there is a season?" This certainly applies to sex. Men are at their most potent at around 18 (I think) and then slowly lose their potency as they get older. There is no reason the government should be paying for 50, 60 or 70 year-old men to get boners. What ever happened to the wisdom of age? Oh no, we're all supposed to remain gonadically-centered adolescents until we finally give up the ghost.

(But what if the erectionally-challenged aging man wants his Viagra to actually procreate? To have a child with his young and fertile wife? Well in that case, I would expect he's paying for it himself because he's too rich for the government to be subsidizing him.)

Look, if you can't get it up anymore, please deal with your impotence in a more "natural" way - go buy a humvee instead!

[Chicago Democrat]

31. Ok, so many totally outrageous assumptions to name

First of all, Viagra is not only for 50 to 90 year olds, but even if it were, keeping it away for that reason is agism.

Most of the Viagra users I have met use it BECAUSE OF ANTIDEPRESSANT MEDICINE CAUSED TOTAL ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION. That 20 year olds, 30 year olds, 40 year olds. Many many gay men, because of a host of reasons, get kicked out of homes etc..and then have anti-depressants. Every single one of your Schizophrenic people. They all HAVE to have viagra. They're allow 6 pills a month.


You dont get it for "recreation" WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN ANYWAY?! Sex is part of a normal human life. Its not "optional".
Lack of it causes serious problems.


Basically this really really hurts handicapt, mentally ill people, On Disablilty most earn about 600 per month and live in extreme poverty. Sorry no happiness for YOU.

[the_spectator]

35. OK I can accept your main point (kind of)-

If a 20 to 40 year old man has impotence (sorry, I refuse to use the marketing term, "Erectile Dysfunction") as a side effect of antidepressants, Viagra can be appropriate.

However, isn't even this a part of a problem? Taking one drug, then taking another to counteract its side-effects, then another to counteract those side-effects, etc. etc?

You also say, "Sex is part of a normal human life. It is not 'optional'." Well, yes it is only "optional." What if no-one wants to have sex with you? There is no "right to sex."

[Bridget Burke]

37. What if a man has a wife--or other partner...

Who loves them, but has sexual needs? Should he stop the anti-Depression meds & risk suicide? Clinical depression is more than being "down in the dumps."

Some people are desired, even though you find that hard to believe.

[Chicago Democrat]

39. Its not optional for a healthy normal person.

There is a right to sex. (obviously not with another person!) No I mean, medically the doctors have to try to "fix" you. A person has a right to be able to have sex. How is this controversial?

Look I don't like talking about this. This is not a fun subject. But regarding the Antidepressants there is no intereaction with Viagra. Its a very very good drug.


There is a drug that interacts very badly with Viagra.. and that's cocaine (causes heart attacks) so whatever... avoid it cause its illegal too.

[sinkingfeeling]

46. Really, a healthy normal person must have sex? Have you not

heard, there are many single people in the world who are celibate?

[Chicago Democrat]

60. That's not normal, in the sense of usual... Sexual Vows in Priests for ex.

And their are degrees on these vows. Just because one is celebate, one could be sexual

Celebacy- Married to church? According to a preist (as he was trying to talk me into sex with him) its no different for a priest to have sex, than a married person to have it (outside of marriage is the issue)Thus one (a preist) could have sex and it would be a sin, but not a VOW breaking sin (much worse). In Catholism, we simply feel guilty about it and go to confession (or something like that)
Chastity- Total no sex vow. Monks do it.. Doesnt have to be life time.

[sinkingfeeling]

75. Well thank you for explaining that I am not a normal, healthy member

of the human race!! I have been celibate, by my own choice, for over 25 years. And I there are hundreds of thousands of others...we are not doing it in the name of religion either.

[shantipriya]

40. viagra & Dole

Why shouldn't the Govt cover a drug whose spokesperson was Bob Dole,the hero of the Repugs.?( Just kidding)

[slamthecrank]

41. As much as I understand

not wanting the Government in the bedroom, etc - I think bill is pivotal on other issues...namely, big drug lobby-ests.

If the government can break the confidentiality between the prescribed and the prescriber, no matter what the reasoning behind it may "seem to be", it most certainly is to gain more profits for the drug companies.

EXAMPLE:

I am a recovering drug addict. There are certain medications that I am prescribed in order to remain away from these 'ellicit' drugs. However, even though I am a fully insured person, my drug-card company has recently defined my medications as "life-style" drugs, and refuse to co-pay on them. That pushes my monthly-prescrips into the upper $400 range. My point is: if they can do this openly with Viagra, etc., then the relationship with the doctor and patient enters into a third-party paradigm, allowing the government to say "nope, doctor, we don't want Jane Doe taking this medication."

I'm just saying - it makes sense not to help cover Viagra, I understand the point behind the arguement, but this point will be used ad nauseum to the entire spectrum of meds. Mark my words.

This is dangerous territory.

Especially, if one is trying to defend our current "market" medical environment, verses "socialized" medicine.

It's not easy trying to explain to people why it's way cheaper for me to buy heroine than to remain clean with a treatment. It's fucked up is what it is. And, these drug companies are profitting, and banking on this type legislation.

[TheDonkey]

68. The term "lifestyle" drug is disturbing.

I could see that ridiculous label being put onto other drugs that right-wing idiots try to keep out of affordability.

[slamthecrank]

70. absolutely. Exactly what I'm saying...

Giving the government/insurance companies the ability to determine what is a "lifestyle" drug, and what is not, is very dangerous. Consider this: --is an antibiotic, prescribed for a toe-nail fungus, a "life-style" drug?

--Is an SSRi, prescribed for a chronic anxiety disorder, considered a "life-style" drug?

--How about a pain med, for someone who's been in a car-accident? Or, dialysis?

Are we willing to hand these decisions over to government officials and insurance brokers? Or, would it be safer, and more ethical, to fill whatever prescription the Doctor of Medicine prescribes?

I may be wrong, but I think this is a very dangerous precedent that may fall into place here. It's another form of Reagan's "starving the beast"...if you starve the "weak", they won't hurt the strong and powerful.

[nonconformist]

48. I support this

People can bring up all of the "what if" and "but" scenarios they want, but Medicaid is being cut all over the place and poor children are falling through the cracks. Along with most traditional medical insurance, they don't cover birth control either (which has never made sense to me from a cost effective view). Some women NEED BC pills for medical reasons too, not just birth control and those aren't covered either. Two wrongs don't make a right, I'm simply pointing out the facts. Will the money saved on this help more needy people get medication they actually NEED? I dunno, but I hope it will. In any event, I support this.

[Danieljay]

49. This is NOT about viagra...this is about NOT paying for Birth Control...

I personally dont think this is about viagra, I believe this is a first step to counter the argument that dems and libs have that viagra is covered and birth control often isn't.

Once viagra is labeled as a lifestyle drug...Birth control pills could be next.

Watch your backs people...

[BattyDem]

55. As I said in a post above ...

Human sexuality is not a choice, it's a fact of life. But the government will classify Viagra (and most likely, birth control) as "lifestyle" drugs. So ... if you can't afford birth control or Viagra, then you don't get to have sex. That's nice ... sex is now for the "rich" - poor people can go without. :eyes: :grr:

[Initech]

56. That's what I dont get.

Why would the government be paying for Viagra, but when Evangelical pharmacists start not honoring perscriptions for birth control saying that it's the exact same thing as an abortion, birth control will get outlawed by calling it a "lifestyle drug".

Really, these people are stupid. Bill Maher was right - they dont work for a higher power. They work for Save-On.

[HockeyMom]

57. HMO wouldn't cover husband's digestion meds,

but covered Viagra in the plan. He would vomit everything he ate after 3 PM. Doctor said he could have an operation also, but HMO wouldn't cover that either. They said, "So don't eat." Exact quote. Now, you tell me. Will you die from not having sex? Will you die from not eating and digesting your food? On the scale of necessary medications, which is more important?

[JDPriestly]

66. The HMO was wrong

to deny the operation and the digestion meds, but that doesn't make their covering Viagra when medically indicated wrong.

[slamthecrank]

71. Exactly...

see my post above.

Similar situation here. My insurance won't cover meds that are prescribed for my addiction therapy. Insurance company claims they are "life-style" drugs.

Now, tell me...without insurance, the meds will cost about $400/week. Why is it cheaper for me to remain an addict of a substance than to get treatment? I guess because they only want the "rich" to be able to have treatment. That's "compassionate convservatism" at work.

[LiberallyInclined]

64. they already DON'T pay for birth control-

so that can't be it...

[TheDonkey]

67. That's an unfortunate move

I understand the anger of medicare and medicade paying for Viagra, but it IS medicine designed to allow an individual live a "normal" life.

Elderly men should be able to achieve um' erections if they so desire if medication is available to do that. It may be cosmetic but does medicare/cade also cover such drugs for snooring, toe fungus, dandruff, etc. which are also cosmetic/lifestyle.

[ebayfool]

72. Some spinal cord injury patients use this drug, as well as people

w/circulatory problems. All I see anyone talking about is the 'boner' part of this, there are other conditions that are treated w/these drugs. So, do you really want the government decreeing whether the docs are diagnosing & dispensing medications to the right patients? Maybe saving a little cash on the 24 yr old quadriplegic because he might cost for the next 40-50 years? I know 2 people that take them for these problems, trust me - the quad doesn't weep w/tears of joy when he gets a hard-on. It breaks his heart & soul, he can't FEEL IT! It just helps keep him alive because it helps his circulatory system! I wish more was being said @ all aspects of this, the fundies just distract w/the moral outrage & don't bother to find out anything more. The friggin' government needs to just stay out of the doctor/patient relationship ... period! They're already in the dark corners enough as it is. I don't want to set them a place at the table & make 'em feel at home - I want them out!

We don't need to give them anymore rope to hang us with!

on edit: damn spell checker!

[Catfight]

74. Finally a senator that has common sense! Paying for a hard on isn't

using my tax money wisely.

[Strawman]

77. Only rich old men are entitled to have boners I guess

Why ban only this quality of life drug? I'm sure this bill will have wide public support. People love controlling other people's sex lives. Nice cock block, Chuck. That federal Viagra tab is what's breaking the bank, I'm sure.