Why are you disgusted that a man diagnosed with ED can get medication for that through his insurance?
A variety of reasons that all boil down to ED isn’t a true medical problem, it’s simply a fact of growing older. I also don’t approve of insurance paying to cover fertility treatments or normal pregnancies since they are also not medical problems and cost an unbelievable amount of money every year. Which takes away from the ability to pay for real problems, like the guy with cancer in the OP. Insurance companies paying out for these things is also why my premium was $650 a month for awhile there. My taxes are skyrocketing due to the feds and state paying for these things.
Insurance companies, the feds and the state government all have a finite amount of money to spend. In my opinion, anyone that wants care for something that is totally non-lifethreatening should pay for it him/her self.
However, I guess I should support the payment of Viagra since a large portion of my retirement is in Pfizer stock.
I feel compelled to suggest adding a qualifier if you plan to re-use this argument at a later date, lest someone jump on you for the implied indifference to arthritis and osteoporosis, leading to a big waste of time since I figure this wasn’t your intent.
Arthritis, which I have two forms of, and osteoporosis, which I probably have to look forward to, are both actual medical medical issues that can disable a person. ED, going bald, getting fat, going grey, etc are facts of old age but are not disabling or life threatening. If I want to lose 50 pounds, should the tax payer pay for it? Should hair color be covered by my insurance? Not all facts of old age should be cured using someone else’s money.
How about if the man has ED due to prostate cancer?
If someone else is paying, they have every right to create guidelines and standards for what they are willing to pay for, as long as, if it’s the government, they do so in a fair, consistant, and non discriminatory way. If you are paying for itself, you should have to right to whatever crazy treatment you can afford.
My post is not to provide answers but to engage the consciousness of the reader to the basic problem. Mine is not so much a question as it is a claim that we face some very serious moral questions that requires answers constructed on a foundation of courage, compassion, and sophistication. How can we stabilize world human population in a moral and sophisticated manner and how do we utilize our resources to best affect that important result?
Citizens must be sophisticated enough to recognize the problem or they will never allow an answer to be formulated. Most of our problems cannot be solved because our citizens are not sophisticated enough to recognize them and thus will not permit a solution until they face the abyss. Often when the abyss is here the solution is too late.
Post #47 is another non-responsive paste from another forum (hypography.com in this case). I think Pittish insults would be better than these roboposts that amount to nothing more than ignoring everyone. I’d rather you’d call me a son of a bitch than pretend I’m not there. If our rules permit this weirdness, then our rules need an overhaul.
In this forum, your intention should be to engage other posters in discussion, not to simply 'lecture" them on your beliefs.
I have (so far) resisted calls by other posters and other staff to simply ban you as a spammer of whatever odd ideas wander into your head. My reasoning has been that the stuff you have cross-posted to multiple sites on the internet are your own thoughts that you are not attempting to sell to anyone.
On the other hand, the registration agreement notes that “This message board is intended as a medium for public discussion.” and “The board is not intended to furnish you with a forum for promoting your personal agenda.” If you continue to simply post multiple threads on whatever mental itch you have each morning and then refuse to actually engage other posters who challenge your assertions, I will conclude that you are not interested in actual participation and you will be banned.
[ /Moderating ]
The ED itself is not a medical problem no matter what men want to think. You want to wood in your whiz, pay for the Viagra, Cialis or whatever that stuff is that Smilin’ Bob pushes yourself. ED is not going to kill or disable you, so I shouldn’t have to pay for it.
That would be great if that is the way it is done, but it isn’t. When I pay for group insurance coverage, I pay for a policy that I had no say in creating. My ideal insurance would be a policy that doesn’t cover pregnancy, infertility or any child healthcare because all of those are extremely expensive but I have no use for any of them. But because those things are very popular among the general population, I get to pay to cover those for other people.
With government policies, again those are skewed towards those who have children or wish to procreate. Which I really don’t think they should be doing on someone else’s dime. However, since noone asks my opinion, I get to keep paying for other folks lifestyle choices.
Lots of medications are perscribed for conditions that aren’t going to kill or disable you.
Unfortunately, you’ve described nearly the entire U.S. population. To get the exact percentage of intellectually sophisticated citizens, divide NPR’s listenership by the 2000 U.S. census and multiply by 100. It will be a very small number.
If they aren’t at all treated, those conditions will eventually kill or disable you - I can’t think of anything that insurance pays for, other than well visits, pregnancy or infertility, that wouldn’t eventually (as in, within a few years) kill or disable.
Remember, group insurance doesn’t cover every RX drug - dunno about Medicare or MediCal as I haven’t kept up on those. For example, the Aetna policy that I paid $650 a month for most of this year didn’t cover my Celebrex. Despite me already being disabled due to rheumatoid arthritis. So I paid for it myself, tho I got mine in Mexico.