$10 per hard-on? Does that mean you’d have to decide who’s “pill-worthy?”
Actually many insurance programs do cover Viagra. They often put a limit on how many pills a month they will pay for though. I believe it varies from one to two or more a week depending on the company.
Diver, when you say it depends on the company.
Do you mean the insurance company, or the company you’re keeping?
GaryM
> If your insurance should cover Viagra then mine should pay for a hooker for me because I have a worse problem which is that I have an erection and nowhere to put it.
Excellent point. If having sex is a necessity, should insurance find partners for those who are alone?
What about facelifts, nose jobs, liposuction, hair transplants, etc? Those are just as medically necessary as Viagra, that is, not at all.
What about a health club membership? Maybe insurance should pay for that, since it should make you healthier in the long run.
You need food to live, so maybe insurance should pay for that, too. Not eating leads to health problems.
Sailor,
Different insurance companies cover different treatments. However, none is likely to pay for adjustments to your social life. Baldness is far from debilitating (I know that for a fact). Not being able to bed a woman for want of a more intriguing persona is far from debilitating. However, not being able to reproduce due to a physical condition would certainly fall under the category of debilitation.
Why are you responding as if your money were intended to pay for someone else’s health care? We’re talking about insurance here, not the dole. It’s difficult to map the path of funding through the insurance system in the way you see to imply it travels. I’d like to see you try though.
Here’s a spare “m”. Please use it at your discretion to make more sense of my last post.
GaryM said "Do you mean the insurance company, or the company you’re keeping? "
Great comeback!! <Grin>
Actually, my health insurance rebates $100 of my health club membership to me for just this reason. It also offers various types of “wellness” classes, including a very cheap Yoga class that I will be taking this fall.
The fact of the matter is NOT being able to have an errection is a physical dysfunction. Thus medicine to correct it should be available. Viagra returns a man to his normal mode.
If one drug works as well as another the costly one shouldn’t be paid for.
I used Acculate but Singular works almost as well. So of course my insurance isn’t going to pay for the more expensive one.
If viagra were primarily being used so guys who wanted to reproduce could get it up to do the deed, I might see that statement as relevant.
I don’t think Bob Dole wants any more kids, though. The fact of the matter is, it’s a lifestyle drug. Couples are using it to have sex. A six pack, a dime bag, or maybe some X could fill the same function.
Not to mention how I feel about paying to help other people have kids in the first place, so that the kids can then be covered under the policy, thus forcing me to pay a part of THEIR policy as well, but that probably belongs in GD.
Viagra is not medically necessary. Period. You won’t have much fun if you don’t take it, but you won’t die. The procreation argument is BS for the vast majority of users. I don’t have any figures, but I’d be willing to bet that it would be cheaper to pay for sperm extractions for every impotent male who sincerely wants to have children rather than pay for lifetime scrips of Viagra for every impotent guy who just wants to boink.
I do not think the qustion is so much whether it is medically necessary or not (I think we all agree it is not). You can have insurance for any event of any nature but you have to be willing to pay the premium. The problem is people want more coverage without increase in premium (they think they can get something for nothing) and that is just not realistic. If you want higher coverage you should be ready to pay higher premium.
I keep my insurance premium low by having a high deductible. It would be ludicrous for me to complain about the deductible when I have a claim.
What is a medical necessity, sailor? A blind man can live a happy life. Does that mean the correction of impaired vision is not a necessity?
As i said, I believe whether it is a “necessity” or not is not really relevant. You can insure anything you like whether it is a necessity or not; you just have to be willing to pay the premium. If your insurance does not cover something you want covered then find another one that does (which will cost you more probably) or pay it out of your own pocket. In the end what people are saying is that someone else should pay for their Viagra and I do not believe they should. I believe you should pay for your own health care through your premiums.
sailor,
This is the portion of your post that caught my attention. Perhaps it’s a debate for another thread, but I’m just not sure I agree with you that the correction or treatment of erectile dysfunction is not medically necessary.
Tymp,
In your example of a blind man, the blind guy would pay higher premiums or out of pocket expenses to get treatment in the first place. He’s a higher cost, so he pays more.
But originally, your argument was that viagra should be covered as a medical necessity because men with ED are physically unable to reproduce. So I ask again, if the majority of viagra users are older men with post-menopausal (or pretty close) wives, who don’t intend to use viagra to have children in the first place, then why should it be covered?
Viagra also affect the “bounce back” time of “normally functioning” guys who would otherwise be jackrabbits in the sack. Should I be covered just so my Gf and I could get it on 5 times in a row rather than three? It would certainly make our lives much happier. I’d love to get it for free. What giving it to chronic alcoholics or cokeheads suffering from “whiskey dick” so that they could otherwise function normally in bed?
whoops… i meant to put this at the end of my message…
I’ve got a funny feeling this thread is going to take a trip pretty soon…
I have not seen evidence to support your assertion that the majority of Viagra users do not intend to reproduce. This assertion may in fact be correct, but I cannot accept this claim without evidence.
Now, let’s remove the question of reproduction from the discussion for a moment. Viagra has been developed and prescribed to treat erectile dysfunction, yes? Regardless of what some (or even most) people use it for, it exists for a reason. Is ED a disability that should be treated, or is such treatment cosmetic enhancement? I’m really curious to know where the line is drawn.
Remember, the primary market for Viagra is rich white men who can’t get it up enough to satisfy their mistresses (before you flame me: the mistresses crack was mostly tongue in cheek).
It’s like asking why a Jaguar costs $60,000. The country clubbers are willing and able to pay it to make up for their flaccidity.
Yep. I think the factual portion of the OP has been answered, so I’ll move this thread to GD for further debate on the hard issue of the appropriateness of insurance coverage for Viagra.