Why are taxpayers paying for Viagra? Where is the Catholic hierarchy's outrage about this?

[shcrane71]

VA doctors can prescribe up to 12 pills in a 90 day period for erectile dysfunction. Doctors can (and some do) deny patients Viagra if they are not married, but this rarely happens. Why aren't Catholics and religious organizations outraged? Why aren't women, and young children outraged?

First, suffers of E.D. disorders are often older or they may be drug addicts. In either case, these men won't be in any condition to provide for any offspring that can result from the ONLY reason for sex -- procreation. Aged men will be incapacitated by dementia or death, and the men abusing drugs are generally not the ideal parents.

It's absolutely mind-boggling that a Congressional hearing hasn't been called to discuss the waste of tax money on providing Viagra. It's as if we have a lop-sided, male bias in our legislature, religious leaders, and FREE press. This is of GREAT national concern.

As for the Libertarians that tell women that they can have their contraception, as long as the women pay for it. These men of liberty have piped up in the anti-contraception debate as well. I trust that these Libertarian men (why are they always white 30-40'ish white guys?) will be just as outspoken about taxpayer funded Viagra.

[cpamomfromtexas]

1. Totally agree!

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. This is outrageous.

But the Catholics are mysoginists so it's not surprising.

[justiceischeap]

3. Because men need to be able to get it up

so they can impregnate the cows... er, their wives, girlfriends, mistresses.

[HopeHoops]

4. They need it to deal with alter boys.

[customerserviceguy]

5. I keep seeing the contraceptions vs. Viagra comparisons

Has any ED medication been approved as a part of any medical plan anywhere without a deductible or co-pay? Or is it simply treated as any other prescription medication?

Also missing from this debate: Aren't contraceptive medications already covered in the formulary for health plans supplied by Catholic religious-based institutions, or are they not?

I'd like to have our side win this argument, but we're not going to do it with half-truths that are easily punctured.

[jeff47]

6. The lack of co-pay is a red herring

Contraception generally isn't covered at all. No co-pay is irrelevant when it isn't covered at all. (Coverage only happens in states that require it, such as New York. Even then, the employer must be over a certain size to cover it).

Also, Catholic institution health plans only cover contraception in states where they are required to do so. If the state doesn't force the institution to cover contraception, they do not.

Perhaps you could actually come up with some pro-contraception arguments that are as easily punctured as these objections.

[customerserviceguy]

8. Perhaps you could answer my question

Do you have knowledge that contraception is NOT covered under any formularies of drug plans from organizations, Catholic-affiliated or not?

And is Viagra ever available anywhere without a co-pay or deductible? The comparisions between ED meds and contraceptive pills really needs to be on a level playing field, if that comparison is to be made.

[jeff47]

13. I already answered your questions.

You just don't like the answers.

Do you have knowledge that contraception is NOT covered under any formularies of drug plans from organizations, Catholic-affiliated or not?

Yes, I do know of health insurance plans that DO NOT cover contraception in any form except permanent sterilization. Because they were my health plans. They were NOT Catholic-affiliated institutions. In fact, they were not religious entities at all.

And is Viagra ever available anywhere without a co-pay or deductible?

Yep. If your insurance plan covers prescriptions without co-pay or deductible, you get Viagra without co-pay or deductible.

My current health plan offers some prescriptions without co-pay or deductible if I use their mail-order pharmacy, in an attempt to get me to use their mail-order pharmacy. I don't know if Viagra is on that list, but I do know there's lots of other medications on that list.

[BOHICA12]

7. It's not about Taxpayer's paying for Contraception or Viagra

It's about requiring a religious organization to pay for something against its doctrine. The Catholics aren't protesting the Local Widgit Factory's medical plan that pays for contraception or the Dept of Defense doing the same thing - they are saying to require paying for such in the Church's Plan is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

[customerserviceguy]

9. Your point is well made

Yes, we all know that certain religions (at least their hierarchies) would like to eliminate contraception as an option for people, but it is essentially impossible for them to do that, given the wide acceptance that contraception enjoys.

Once we move from the "freedom to do something" argument to the "who's job is it to pay for it" argument, we can expect some heavy resistance. At some point, should the United States become a nation of primarily vegans (something I don't expect in my lifetime) we will probably have a debate about whether or not food stamps should cover the purchase of meat.

[jeff47]

14. Not any more

The Republicans started with "OMG! Catholic Hospital would have to pay for birth control!!!!"

They've since moved on to businesses that are not at all religious - just their executives are.

Here's the deal: If you're a church, and you remain a church, you don't have to cover birth control. Nowhere in the proposed regulations do churches have to provide birth control.

The thing is when you stop being a church and become a hospital, you aren't a church anymore.

[CrispyQ]

32. You nailed it.

The thing is when you stop being a church and become a hospital, you aren't a church anymore.

[shcrane71]

34. Thank You!!! Do church related hospitals get tax deductions? n/t

[jeff47]

35. Only the ones available to any non-profit hospital (nt)

[shcrane71]

17. Churches aren't paying for contraception... health insurance companies are.

If one isn't going to provide preventative medicine (and Hey 10 MILLION AMERICAN WOMEN USE CONTRACEPTIVES FOR CONDITIONS OTHER THAN BIRTH CONTROL) then one shouldn't be in the business of providing health insurance.

No one is telling any crazy guy that he can't say God speaks to him directly and says to fill the planet up with billions and billions of little miracles.

[BOHICA12]

20. And if you're a self-insured entity ... who pays?

Health Insurance Companies aren't doing it for free - their customers will pay the bill.

Could we slide down the slope to required abortive services based on neonatal testing for race, sex, eye-color, sexual orientation, etc.

Grease is the word!

[MattBaggins]

36. What?

[shcrane71]

47. Contraceptives save health insurers and healthcare consumers money...

It's much more cost effective than pregnancies and births. Surprised you didn't know that.

[Odin2005]

10. Because dirty old men need to get their dicks up.

God forbid they can no longer chase after jailbait!

[FogerRox]

11. Just not the same,

[CTyankee]

12. I see the equity argument here: ED only happens to men, pregnancy only happens to women.

[Dokkie]

15. Yes you are right

One helps you produce a child and the other helps you eliminate a potential child. Then again nobody is forcing the Catholic hospitals to provide ED drugs for anybody that the big pharma lobbying our corrupt elected officials to make it happen. Again, you ignore the fact that the new laws was about paying for women's contraception which is very sexist.

Govt(and society) donates loads and loads of cash for breast cancer research and loads more for breast cancer screening when next to nothing is done for prostrate cancer treatment research or testing for guys. Imagine if this was done for a male disease which is less fatal and has a self (albeit less accurate testing) test and next to nothing for a femal disease that killed more women and has no self testing?

Btw heart disease and lung cancer each kills more women than breast cancer but since theres no boobs involved society pays less attention to them. But I have a solution to all this, just pay for your damn contraception and stop forcing religious nstitutions to cover it. Men do it all the time and would gladly pay for their m8 contraception if asked. God knows us men would hate to be trapped into paying 18yrs of child support for an unwanted kid.

[CTyankee]

18. Oh, I see "eliminate a potential child." And what if that woman chooses not to have another

or any child? Is that YOUR business?

What is YOUR problem with having the woman have the means to be free to make the choice of when and whether to bear a child?

Please do go on and elaborate more. I am sure that many of my colleagues here at DU are eager to hear of you heartfelt beliefs.

Have at it...

[Dokkie]

19. Lol

Are you trying to imply that am pro life? I am so pro choice it would make your head spin. Personally I think a woman has the right to abort even after the baby is born(in cases of severe deformity). The fact that contraception stops the creation of a potential child is not in doubt and a church or institution who is against it shouldn't be made to pay for it. On the other had non catholic women who work for said institution should be allowed( as it is now) to use the income from those institution to pay for contraception.

Just so you understand me clearly, a woman or man should be allowed to buy whatever they want in the case contraception with his/her income and an institution who is opposed to it should also be free not to cover for said practice in their health insurance. Not saying this because I am catholic because at this point I am only going to church to make my parents happy.

I love to see your reply now

[CTyankee]

29. thank you for clarifying. I'm sorry that you needed to.

This is why I said "have at it."

Clarification appreciated and of course accepted!

[shcrane71]

41. Churches shouldn't be in the business of providing health insurance

Let's understand that birth control pills are used by over 10 million Americans for medical conditions -- not birth control. I really do not believe you understand how politicizing medicine hurts women. How these debates intimidate doctors into NOT prescribing contraception or medical procedures that could help to alleviate medical problems such as constant vaginal bleeding due to polyps.

Most importantly, no one is telling churches that they must pay for contraception. Health insurance companies must provide access to contraception. It's good business sense. It's medically necessary. It's a health issue. If you don't want it, then don't take it. It's just that simple. If your health insurance is provided by any organization that can't comply with including this prescribing well-tested, proven medicine -- then it should get out of the business of providing health insurance. This is similar to Wash. DC saying saya nara to Catholic Charities when that bigoted organization was accepting tax dollars for adoption services, but refused to allow gay couples to adopt.

[FogerRox]

51. Right, and, there is more too it.

On multiple levels its just not the same.

[shcrane71]

53. It's very difficult to get men to empathize with women's health issues that have been

politicized by men*. To paraphrase the amazing Meryl Streep in talking about her male fans. They only really could empathize her character from The Devil Wears Prada because that character had a job similar to theirs, and acted most man-like.

Therefore, equating contraception (a necessary medication for 10 million women who have trouble getting it because others use it to prevent births -- which is their prerogative) with an only male expense, Viagra, works very well.

The argument resonates with women, and most men -- probably not the men who have ever needed Viagra.

* Objection to contraception comes primarily from religious organizations which have historically banned women from positions of power, and are still heavily male-dominated. Thus why only half of the population is being blamed for this denial of health services here.

[shcrane71]

16. Churches objections to contraception is that sex should only be for procreation

The primary users of Viagra aren't in a position to be an active parent to a child; so, ED drugs shouldn't be given to these individuals. Churches should be outraged if someone incapable of being a father due to age, mental or physical illness, then one shouldn't be having medically induced erections. If God would have wanted these men procreating, He (surely God is a He, no?) wouldn't have taken away the workings of their man parts.

[Dokkie]

21. You missing the point here

This outrage started not because some insurance companies were required to pay for contraception it started because religious institution were mandated under the Affordable healthcare act to pay for contraception. Religious organizations couldn't care less if UPS were covering contraception in their insurance plan. And the argument about viagra is totally irreleveant because nobody is forcing anybody to cover it. And viagra CAN be used for procreation while contraception CANNOT in any way shape or form used to assist in procreation.

I actually sorta agree with your last sentence, why should catholic churches operate hospitals? shouldn't they be in the business of praying for healing. Every operation, organ transfer etc etc is another way they play God on earth.

[shcrane71]

25. Incorrect... Obama's compromise states that health insurance coverage must include contraceptives

So, then the churchy guys can stop getting their panties in a bunch over the whole ordeal because they're NOT paying for contraceptives. Understand? It's really, really quite simple. It's a consumer protection. Health ins. plans that don't include contraceptives, and hell even DNC's aren't really covering the health problems that plague millions of women. Think of it like knowing when you're buying a car that the seat belts work. Or when you buy car insurance, that you're health is covered in case of a crash. If you don't cover contraceptives, then you're not covering the MILLIONS of women who suffer from endometriosis, ovarian cysts, uterine fibroids and polyps... AS WELL as those that don't want to become pregnant. And guess what is the biggest health care expense for young women? C'mon, just guess... oh yes! pregnancy and births! Just makes sense to make every one of those pregnancies and births a wanted one, eh? Churchy guys have NOT ONE THING TO DO WITH IT! But if they're going to claim that they're paying for it (which they aren't), then by their man-cave logic, women can and will bitch about paying for the drugs that allows them to get off.

It's so, so, so, simple...

[joeglow3]

27. Really?

So, by forcing the insurance companies to include more things makes said product NOT go up in cost? And when an employer pays a portion of this increase in cost, they are not paying for those items.

One thing I do agree with you one: It's so, so, so, simple...

[shcrane71]

33. Seems a portion of the population REALLY has a problem doing simple cost analysis... Sooo for you!

True story: As a 20-something working for a small business where a benefit was that the employer would pay half of the health care premium, I was brought into a room with the owner. As the first and only female working for this firm, he had just discovered that my health care premiums were higher than what he was paying for the 60 year old male employee. I was told that this good company would cover my premiums up to the point of a 60 year old man's premium -- about a third, and I (the only female employee would pay 2/3). Are you following me? I believe the new Health Care Act now ensures that women aren't charged so much more than men.

Why do you think the health insurance premium for a young, healthy female would be that much more than a 60 year old, male smoker (yes he was a smoker)? Pregnancies and births are expensive. The less pregnancies and births, the more money savings. Birth control SAVES money not only by preventing pregnancies (big health care $$ spent there), but also in reducing the number of surgeries needed for things such as removing polyps, fibroids, and endometrial scar tissue.

Hope that helps you understand the economics of it Joe.

[mmonk]

22. It isn't a contraceptive.

[shcrane71]

26. Which 98% percent of Catholic women use. I'm sure the numbers are similar for other religious sects

God those boys looked stupid at that Congressional hearing.

[joeglow3]

28. Agree. However, the Catholic church is not a democracy

You choose to belong or not. However, our Constitution guarantees these rights to churches. This is one area where I think the ACLU has their head up their asses:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/aclu-catholic-religious-liberty-not-risk/362671

Sorry, but the Constitution forbids the GOVERNMENT from infringing on these rights. Individuals have every right to do this. Just like the government cannot tell you what you can and cannot say on the internet, but DU has every right to limit it on their website.

[MattBaggins]

37. The Catholic Church doesn't have to operate businesses

the activities they engage in that are outside of the realm of religion do not merit protection.

If a church was going to say it wouldn't hire minorities they would get a rude awakening just as they should on this issue.

[joeglow3]

38. It extends beyond just the church

If an individual CHOOSES to provide insurance to their employees, they should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

And these "businesses" are not-for-profit institutions that are intended to serve people, including the poor (another major tenant of their religious views). Or, do you consider soup kitchens and shelters for battered women "businesses?"

[MattBaggins]

39. Yes they should be forced to violate those beliefs

An employer can't refuse to provide health coverage to a white employee who has a black spouse or to a protestant who has married a Jew. Can't violate minimum wage laws for religious reasons either.

If those not for profits hire people than they do in fact have a business side of the operation.

[joeglow3]

40. Because those violate other Constitutional rights

There is not a Constitutional right to have birth control provided.

[shcrane71]

44. It's a MEDICATION! A cost-effective, proven medication. If a so-called health care

provider isn't going to provide health care, then they need to get out of that business. Is this a democratic forum? This is such a no-brainer on so many levels.

[joeglow3]

45. The problem with the Constitution is that you need to support those things you may oppose

You are claiming a view that I support, but is not supported by the Constitution. The challenge with the Consitution is that we all need to support its enforcement, even if we don't like it. I certainly loathe the mouth breathers from Westboro, but I fully support their right to spew their hate. If I refuse to support the Constitution just because I like the outcome, who is going to support me when someone else wants to violate the Constitution to my detriment, just because they like the outcome.

Birth Control pills used simply to plan one's reproductive future (note, I am not talking about prescriptions for non-reproductive reasons) is far from a Constitutional right, no matter how much we support it. Sorry, but while I will fight to convince people to support the right side of a cause and even to amend the Constitution, I will not abandon it.

[shcrane71]

46. It's unconstitutional to require Health Care providers to provide contraceptives? That's ludicrous.

I suppose you think the IRS is unconstitutional as well.

[joeglow3]

48. When it violates someone else's rights under the Constitution, yes.

If, as a part of my religious views, I oppose something, forcing me to provide it is a violation of my Constitutional rights. Now, if by me carrying out that act it violates someone elses rights under the Constitution, it is not allowed. Thus, we would need to show a constitutional right to receive birth control pills from your employer.

On a related note, my wife is an RN at an OB/GYN's office. The doctors she works for refuse to provide abortions. Are they violating their patient's Constitutional rights?


As a tax accountant, I don't think the IRS is unconstitutional.

[shcrane71]

52. Clerk of courts in many states must deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples because it's the law.

It's against the values and consciences of many of those clerks, but that's the law, and those clerks do their jobs. If a healthcare provider can't in good conscience provide healthcare, then that person should get out of that line of work.

I don't want to draw blood from people; so, I'm not a phlebotomist. It's a free country. If you're a pacifist, it's probably best if you don't join the Marines. Even Rick Santorum's wife had an abortion, even though he's calling it a "miscarriage" caused by a DNC. She would have lost her life had those doctors been morally opposed to abortions (even in instances of saving the mother's life -- as Rick Santorum is).

Let's be logical. You're obviously NOT affected by this; so, it's not in YOUR relevant range. I applaud those doctors that I hear are denying viagra to men. We should go further, and mandate that any employer who is morally opposed to recreational sex to deny Viagra or implants for ED. There's no need for it. It increases health care costs for all -- unlike contraception which SAVEs money.

Heck, employers may soon be able to tell people that they have too many kids, and their health insurance isn't going to pay for it. Santorum is going to get rid of prenatal testing as well. You think healthcare costs are bankrupting our nation right now, wait until we're spending millions of dollars to keep kids without brains alive for a few days/weeks.

[shcrane71]

42. Many people are making six figures a year working for "non-profits" helping the needy.

Non-profits are businesses too. Have you learned nothing from the Komen fiasco?

[mmonk]

30. True but I was just giving the reason or answer.

[shcrane71]

31. Thanks... that's what I thought you were doing. Still, they want to start a war then be prepared

for the fall out.

[fascisthunter]

23. Zey Vant more Peepz!

goofy, but it is true...

[rustydog]

24. How many child molesting priests need the pill? Come on, get real

[spanone]

43. It's as if we have a lop-sided, male bias in our legislature, religious leaders.....

yup

[JNelson6563]

49. Because it might result in more of the right kind of babies.

Preferably white and Christian.

Julie

[TheKentuckian]

50. I'm 100% fine with covering anything

FDA approved, with an approved diagnosis or application that is reasonably supported.
In fact, I'm more than fine with it, I think that should be the law and the absolute minimum level of coverage available.

I understand where you are coming from, I just think the line of reasoning is a bit on the toxic side and the possibility of a lot of people's care, even in totally unrelated areas, being lost in an eye for an eye level ramifications but in the context of a spitball fight.

I thing it is wrong to validate the Reich Wing thought process on medical care by jumping in with both feet in the tit for tat, which it isn't because for women, control over their bodies is on the line too. Old men not being covered on boner pills isn't going to help the young women with essentially the option to lose control of their sexuality or their bodies, if not both in the end.

I think this argument sells the point very short and doesn't take medical care very seriously by sharing the logic that got us here.

[shcrane71]

54. This is often the first, middle, and last argument I hear amongst women from all different

backgrounds. I've had several friends who have had pharmacist refuse to fill their birth control prescriptions. I've seen people suffer for years with cysts, fibroids, polyps because gynocologists were too skittish to prescribe procedures or medication that could alleviate the painful symptoms of these conditions.

Not sorry whatsoever if this argument is considered unpalatable by some. Abortion doctors have been threatened, harassed, and assassinated (IN THEIR PLACE OF WORSHIP). Now, vast most American women in the middle of America don't have access to abortions because there's no provider within 500 miles of where they live.

So now there's legislation that may very well be passed allowing employers to not cover health care procedures, medications that they find unconscionable. I've just listened to a liar say that this is in no way an attack on contraception. How stupid does she think her fellow women are? We all know that a bill like this is aimed at controlling women, women's health, women's bodies.

[wallsan]

55. Why are taxpayers paying for Viagra?

Hi Shcrane,

My doctor denies..that is what I was told..we do not know how many deny for unmarried..

My insurance doesn't pay for my ED treatment. So I have pay for viagra from my pocket..

I have been getting medications for my ed treatment online at 25 % off, from a online pharmacy international drug mart

They provide trail packs too..that make even affordable..

It seems there are employee funded programs that provide the coverage.too..Is any one aware of this..

[shcrane71]

56. Welcome to DU. The Veterans Administration (VA hospitals) are 100% supported from

our tax dollars, and the VA provides ED medication. VA docs can deny patients who aren't married, but my understanding is that very few do.