According to the Philadelphia Inquirer on Wed., Feb. 2, drugs that enhance sexual performance, such as Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra, will be covered in Medicare?s new prescription-drug program, costing upwards of $500 billion over the next decade. For once, conservatives and I agree on something. Conservatives believe that this is something the government should not provide.After all, isn?t it the premise of original Republican ideals for the government to stay out of our hospitals, doctor?s offices, and bedrooms? Not to mention the fact that, as some point out, including these drugs for coverage under Medicare could bankrupt the prescription benefit.
“Conservatives say the law puts Congress, and not doctors, in the position of deicing which drugs should be covered precisely the kind of big-government role that majority Republicans and President Bush campaigned against,” according to the Inquirer. That?s funny. So they are opposed to government not deciding which prescriptions are covered, but they want to control what doctor?s procedures are even legal (abortion, for example).
Sexual performance-enhancing drugs for men are covered under a prescription plan handed out by the government. What good is this going to do for the country? Why not put more money towards lowering the prescription costs of birth control?
Granted, the U.S. population isn?t necessarily outrageous, but what about the effects that Viagra is going to have? It?s not necessarily true that men taking Viagra who use Medicare to pay for it are only having sex with post-menopausal women who are unable to conceive. Not to mention the fact that an unwanted pregnancy is a much bigger problem than not being able to get it up.
I?ve always been a huge advocate for family planning education and funding. And no, NOT abstinence-only education, and not global-gag rule type funding that restricts those funded from teaching about abortion or using any funds for abortions.
A world of wanted children would make a world of difference. Yet, there are women in this country (not to mention everywhere else in the world) who cannot afford birth control, and do not have access to a Planned Parenthood clinic to receive discounted birth control and exams. And even if she does, it?s not guaranteed that she will be able to afford even the discounted services.
I am not ungrateful of the overwhelming job that Planned Parenthood does, with the help of state and federal funding. However, I see no reason whatsoever for Medicare to cover sexually-enhancing drugs. And believe me, I?m an advocate of sex. Maybe if the government wasn?t in a huge deficit I wouldn?t mind. But $500 billion is a lot of money to spend for people to have sex. Maybe it?s because I can?t empathize with this problem. Another disturbing thought is that the health risks and side effects of sexually-enhancing drugs are not something that is worth $500 billion.
Not to mention the fact that most men probably need the drug due to the side effects of other drugs, such as blood pressure medication. Big pharmaceutical companies need to keep their hands out of the government?s pockets, and vice versa.
My theory is that adding another set of drugs to the Medicare prescription drug plan only boosts sales of those companies. This is all coming at the expense of taxpayers? money, which will be borne by generations to come. No wonder Bush approved $500 billion more worth of debt. He won?t be around to care about it.