Viagra
Posted by Jonathan Bunch on 7 July 2005 | 9 responses
Missouri Governor Matt Blunt has decided that Medicaid funds should not be used to pay for drugs like Viagra, Cialis, or Levitra. Not that controversial . . . right?
Wrong. But that really doesn’t matter, because any potential reason for challenging Blunt’s action has eluded the folks who would otherwise be bothered. I would strongly advise Medicaid recipients to begin accepting applications for “activists.” One of their activists, Robin Acree, responded to Blunt’s decision by arguing that it contradicts his position on other social issues. According to Acree: “Someone who has erectile dysfunction cannot obtain the medication they need to procreate – I think that’s not in sync with what the pro-life message is.”
Hmmm. [Confused]
9 Responses to “Viagra”
What are the statistics of men who have erectile dysfunction? From the commercials, it looks like men in their late 40s or early 50s. That being said, if their partners are the same age, procreation does not seem like it would really be a concern.
Of course, there are those outliers who, with the help of fertility drugs, manage to have children at a later age.
What bothers me is if these drugs are somehow tied to the right to procreate, will this open the door for other, more expensive alternatives like in vitro?
As far as I can tell, erectile disfunction hasn’t killed anybody. Why are state funds being used for these “lifestyle” drugs? Simple explanation: they are largely welfare for the drug companies and the upper middle class. In more than a few jurisdictions, medicaid is being cut back for the poor, and the resourses being diverted to these “lifestyle” drugs.
I’m not exactly sure why, because “marital aids” have been around for years. If you don’t know what I’m referring to, try “Doc Johnson”
But I tend to believe that these drugs are highly profitable for the drug companies.
raj, you are incorrect. ED drugs are no more highly profitable than any number of other “blockbuster” drugs. Furthermore, sales to state health plans are the least profitable of all, because the states have a huge customer base to leverage when negotiating prices. (Of course, the federal Medicare Rx plan will not negotiate in the same way, but that’s a different issue.)
Secondly, the upper middle class isn’t on Medicaid. Unless I’m wrong, medicaid is for low-income patients.
That said, I am dubious of the need for taxpayer-funded health plans to cover sex drugs.
Raj, how would you define “lifestyle” drug? Would Zyrtec be a “lifestyle” drug? It’s purpose is to reduce misery, specifically the misery of seasonal allergies. You don’t die if you don’t have it, but you sure spend a lot of time sneezing and rubbing your eyes and generally being miserable.
That we make a distinction between Zyrtec (or Oxycontin, for that matter– people don’t die of chronic pain, they just suffer) as being a valid drug to give out charitably, and Viagra (and relateds), demonstrates a vast set of expectations we have about what it means to be human. We think we know what a baseline human being is– and one that’s sneezing or hurting in one sense needs to be helped, but one that cannot enjoy a healthy sex life with his spouse does not need help.
Or maybe it’s an expectation that 50 and 60 year olds have had their fun and the loss of sexuality at that age is no big deal. (I think one should ask them if that’s case!)
If the issue is human happiness, then the distinction is artifical and driven by one’s squeamishness about sex. Or maybe old people and sex. But it’s always about sex, and not about happiness.
If the issue is though, that there isn’t funding for children to receive eye exams or a teenage girl to receive treatment for bulimia because of old men’s sex drives then there is a definite problem.
CM nails down the issue: it is a matter of disposition of resources. The resources aren’t infinite.
As far as I can tell, “erectile disfunction” hasn’t killed anyone. It might have made some people unhappy, which is why I refer to the drugs used to treat them as “lifestyle drugs.” They are enormously profitable for the drug companies, which is why they are heavily advertized on TV and radio. And, for that matter, over the internet.
Elf, the issue you are raising (likening the issue to chronic pain) isn’t black and white. But chronic pain has consequences that can be ameliorated. What are the consequences of a guy not being able to get an erection? There are implements that can be purchased that can be used to ameliorate the situation if his significant other is disappointed.
Actually the biggest action Blunt and the Republican legislature of Missouri has taken in terms of Medicaid is to set the income levels that qualify for it so low that by the time everything takes effect it is estimated that 90,000 people or more will lose their benefits. Truman Medical Center, the hospital in Kansas City that treats the most Medicaid recipients and other people on the lower end of the economic spectrum recently announce a list of cutbacks and services they would no longer be able to offer. The next day Governor Blunt appeared on television to claim that the Republican actions would not cause anyone to not receive medical treatment they need. Liar. He knows that’s not true. Anyone with the tiniest fraction of a clue knows that there will be people not receiving treatment they need because of this. There were tax loopholes for corporations in the Missouri code big enough to drive a semi through that could have been closed to spare some of what was done. They chose not to do so. In fact the law proposed by and passed by the Republicans calls for the complete elimination of Medicaid by 2008. They created a commission to come up with an alternative program. Of course the elimination is guaranteed while the replacement program is not. I don’t think they’ll come up with one. I don’t believe that they really want to.
They are enormously profitable for the drug companies, which is why they are heavily advertized on TV and radio.
You keep saying that as though it’s some kind of dirty secret. But as you say, it’s not as if the profits from ED drugs are ripped from people on their death beds. iPods are enormously profitable for Apple, which is why they are heavily advertised on TV and radio.
I agree with you that Viagra et al are pretty much the last thing we should be spending public health dollars on. Apart from that, why do you care how much Pfizer makes from their little blue pills? (Unless you’re a stockholder, in which case your answer should be “as much as possible.”)
Eric, do you have a tin ear? The resources that can be devoted to medical care aren’t infinite. The tax monies that are diverted to paying for drugs that are devoted to erectile disfunction could actually be used to help treat disease. What does ED cause? At the risk of being banned, I’ll put it to you explicitly. A man can ejaculate without having an erection. And he can “pleasure” his partner by use of a mechanical implement. I know both. Both I and my partner are in our 50s. We’ve been around for a while.
As far as I can tell, the only use for ED drugs is to allow the male to feel good about himself while having sex with a female.
Is that explicit enough for you?
The monies spent on Viagra, Cialis, et all would be better spent ameliorating pain, curing disease in children, etc.
Let the people who want to treat “ED” buy the drugs themselves. Or buy a “mechanical implement.” The latter would be less expensive in the long run.