Congress Pulls Plug on Viagra Subsidies

 Posted In: Editorial — October 25, 2005 @ 11:09 am — Peter

http://www.louisianaweekly.com/weekly/news/articlegate.pl?20051024k

Wow, I had no idea that the U.S. government was subsidizing the cost of Viagra, and other crap, via the Medicaid program. How absolutely appalling, many citizens go without basic healthcare, while slime ball men are getting their rocks off using our tax dollars. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a strong supporter of taxation for providing a strong social network of assistance for those flirting with poverty. However, subsidizing sexual dysfunction drugs is a flagrant waste of money.

One can only wonder how long these subsidies would have continued if it were not for the redirection of funds required to support those affected by hurricane Katrina.

3 Responses to “Congress Pulls Plug on Viagra Subsidies”

  1. Victor Says:
    October 26th, 2005 at 5:57 am

    I agree with you. It is a waste of money when you consider that Medicaid doesn’t reimburse providers enough for them to stay in business, and Medicare is already going to be overburdened by the pending retirement of the baby boomers. It is a gross misallocation of funds. However, calling the recipients “slime ball men” just because they receive these medications is probably way too harsh. Remember Peter, the elderly and disabled need sex too.

  2. Peter Says:
    October 26th, 2005 at 8:15 am

    Perhaps I was a bit harsh. However, I’m under the impression that the majority of elderly and disabled folks are on Medicare, not Medicaid. Also, I derived my ‘slime ball men’ statement from the following assumption. Those taking advantage of federal health benefits are likely on the fringes of poverty and certainly restricted in the amount of funds available for non-essential purchases. While some may see sex as a vital life function, it is definitely not required to sustain one’s life. Therefore, the individuals obtaining Viagra via Medicaid are likely forgoing some essential item in order to obtain this non-essential item. For example, instead of saving excess personal funds to build savings, and ultimately move on from federally subsided healthcare, personal funds are being squandered on the co-pay for subsidized sexual dysfunction drugs. This is a rather poor decision in my book.

  3. Victor Says:
    October 27th, 2005 at 6:39 am

    The article stated that both Medicaid and Medicare provided the benefit. In fact, the bill that the article mentioned would keep the Medicare benefit until 2007 while doing away with the Medicaid benefit in 2006. There is one more point I want to make. Many elderly are covered under both Medicare and Medicaid. In the healthcare industry, we called them medi/medi. Ok there is another point I want to make. While I agree that this is money that is not being well spent. Sex is not a vital life function. I am however reluctant to use that as my main arguement for opposing the sexual dysfunction benefit. Doing so discounts “quality of life” entirely. That is the same arguement that the nutballs trying to keep Teri Schiavo alive were making. Life at any cost. Now before you jump on me for saying that. I know that the situation here is totally different, and this is one case where “quality of life” can be ethically discounted, so my example doesn’t really apply. However, when making a political arguement it is always a good idea to take it to the extreme. Doing so can point out any unintended consequences. There are many reasons to oppose the benefit; many of them economic. You don’t have to resort to blaming the old and the poor for wanting at least some temporary joy in life.

Leave a Reply