"I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction
medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it
should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill.
And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their
insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their
coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don't think there's
even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be
wrong about that.)
Many of the men who are prescribed this medication are on Medicare, so I think
it should be stripped out of that coverage as well. And unlike the payments for
abortion, which actually lower overall medical costs (pregnancy obviously costs
much, much more) banning tax dollars from covering any kind of Viagra would
result in a substantial savings:
The price of Pfizer's Viagra has doubled since it was launched, according
to a list of wholesale acquisition costs paid by pharmacies...
I don't want my tax dollars touching even one milimeter of that overly engorged
expense.
I realize that many people disagree with my moral objections to men getting
erections which God clearly doesn't want them to get, but my principles on this
are more important to me than theirs are to them. So too bad. If you want a
boner, pay for it yourself.
And I think those noxious advertisements for the drugs should be banned as
well, if only for aesthetic reasons. Having to watch my baby boomer fellows
wail "Viva Viagra" is offensive to anyone who has any taste in music."
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/immoderate-proposal-by-digby-i-have.html
