OK this teachers union has finally even gotten to me

[hal2kilo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38596955/ns/health-sexual_health

This is not a life threatening medical condition. It's all those insaitiable women's fault. First they won't put out, now they're spoiled he! he!

 

[woolfe9999]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38596955/ns/health-sexual_health

This is not a life threatening medical condition. It's all those insaitiable women's fault. First they won't put out, now they're spoiled he! he!

Why should Viagra be excluded from any insurance plan? Is erectile dysfunction not a valid medical condition? If so, then I suppose private insurers shouldn't cover it either (actually some don't), because all it does is inflate everyone else's premiums to pay for something frivolous. OTOH, if it is a valid medical condition, then public plans should cover it as much as private plans.

I think the key issue here is that people perceive Viagra as basically a "recreational" drug.

- wolf

 

[her209]

I think the key issue here is that people perceive Viagra as basically a "recreational" drug.

- wolf

Sex is a "recreational" activity.

 

[spidey07]

If it's mandated that mental health treatment and associated drugs must be covered then viagra needs to be covered as well.

 

[woolfe9999]

Sex is a "recreational" activity.

So not being able to have sex is not a valid medical condition? Suppose you have torn cartelige in your knee that ONLY prevents you from engaging in "recreational activity." Should treating it should not be covered by insurance?

- wolf

 

[spidey07]

I wonder if they covered the old school "penis pumps"?

 

[her209]

So not being able to have sex is not a valid medical condition? Suppose you have torn cartelige in your knee that ONLY prevents you from engaging in "recreational activity." Should treating it should not be covered by insurance?

- wolf

Your knee analogy doesn't work because you use your knee for more than recreational activity.

 

[hal2kilo]

So not being able to have sex is not a valid medical condition? Suppose you have torn cartelige in your knee that ONLY prevents you from engaging in "recreational activity." Should treating it should not be covered by insurance?

- wolf

Meh, I see the point. Where does it end. Bariatric surgery, lasik?

 

[hal2kilo]

I wonder if they covered the old school "penis pumps"?

would viagra vice penis pump be kind of equivalent to lasik vice eyeglasses?

 

[woolfe9999]

Your knee analogy doesn't work because you use your knee for more than recreational activity.

My wife has a chronic knee injury which only prevents her from doing certain activities like playing tennis. It doesn't even prevent all forms of excersize.

Anyway, hair splitting and analogies aside, I hardly think that not being able to have sex is a minor or trivial issue. Whether sex is "recreational" or not, it is very important to people.

- wolf

 

[hal2kilo]

If it's mandated that mental health treatment and associated drugs must be covered then viagra needs to be covered as well.

I've never figured out why mental illness coverage is so limited. Yes, it could get quite expensive. So is taking several years to die when it's inevitable but we pay for it.

 

[woolfe9999]

Meh, I see the point. Where does it end. Bariatric surgery, lasik?

I think that a public plan should cover what a more or less average or typical private plan covers. Or it might be justified for it to cover a little more, IF the wage is low compared to an equivalent private sector job.

- wolf

 

[daishi5]

So not being able to have sex is not a valid medical condition? Suppose you have torn cartelige in your knee that ONLY prevents you from engaging in "recreational activity." Should treating it should not be covered by insurance?

- wolf

My fiancee works for an insurance company, and she was just telling me last night about claims that are filed for compensation because the injured party can no longer have sex.

 

[Jaskalas]

Anyway, hair splitting and analogies aside, I hardly think that not being able to have sex is a minor or trivial issue. Whether sex is "recreational" or not, it is very important to people.

- wolf

Maybe the tax payers should fund for prostitutes for them then.

 

[woolfe9999]

My fiancee works for an insurance company, and she was just telling me last night about claims that are filed for compensation because the injured party can no longer have sex.

It's a 100% valid form of serious injury. When men are made parapalegic, don't you think it bothers them almost as much that they can never again have sex as it does that they can never again walk?

- wolf

 

[her209]

Whether sex is "recreational" or not, it is very important to people.

- wolf

Other things are important to other people also, but it shouldn't be the sole basis for whether its covered or not.

 

[hal2kilo]

Well I see I'm getting hit from both sides of the political spectrum so I guess then people shouldn't be confused as to why medical cost are expanding much faster then the rate of inflation. I'm not trying to be a smart ass about this.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well I see I'm getting hit from both sides of the political spectrum so I guess then people shouldn't be confused as to why medical cost are expanding much faster then the rate of inflation. I'm not trying to be a smart ass about this.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

I'm not sure if this is a very good example to illustrate the problem of rising costs, unless you're talking about putting caps on prescription drug costs, or permitting their importation from abroad? Or are you saying that a drug which permits people otherwise unable to have sex to have sex is frivolous and should not be covered, kind of like getting cosmetic surgery? Sex is non-essential to life; it's just for fun?

Anyway, the Viagra patent expires I think this year, so we'll have generics here pretty soon and that should reduce the cost of insuring it.

- wolf

 

[daishi5]

Other things are important to other people also, but it shouldn't be the sole basis for whether its covered or not.

I am not really familiar with the legal reasoning, but from an economic point of view, the importance of something to a person is an indicator of how their quality of life has declined due to its loss. It is like putting a price on never having sex again, how much money would I have to give you, for you to agree to never have sex again? If an injury occurs that robs you of that ability, it is like I took that much money in the form of sexual enjoyment away from you.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Why should Viagra be excluded from any insurance plan? Is erectile dysfunction not a valid medical condition? If so, then I suppose private insurers shouldn't cover it either (actually some don't), because all it does is inflate everyone else's premiums to pay for something frivolous. OTOH, if it is a valid medical condition, then public plans should cover it as much as private plans.

I think the key issue here is that people perceive Viagra as basically a "recreational" drug.

- wolf

Slap some sustanon in your cheek for three days, wait a week, try viagra and you'll have the blue cock of vengance!

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm not sure if this is a very good example to illustrate the problem of rising costs, unless you're talking about putting caps on prescription drug costs, or permitting their importation from abroad? Or are you saying that a drug which permits people otherwise unable to have sex to have sex is frivolous and should not be covered, kind of like getting cosmetic surgery? Sex is non-essential to life; it's just for fun?

Anyway, the Viagra patent expires I think this year, so we'll have generics here pretty soon and that should reduce the cost of insuring it.

- wolf

I'm derailing my own thread here. But, the problem to me is that everyone seems to be onboard with the idea that as new medical developments occur they should be applied no matter what the cost. Also, even though patents expiring can reduce the costs of medications, have the cost of procedures also come down due to new technologies or techniques? The medical field just doesn't seem to benefit from technology like other things except for outcome (for the most part). I know from very personal experience that the world would be saving trillions if there was a cure for Alzheimers disease.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm derailing my own thread here. But, the problem to me is that everyone seems to be onboard with the idea that as new medical developments occur they should be applied no matter what the cost. Also, even though patents expiring can reduce the costs of medications, have the cost of procedures also come down due to new technologies or techniques? The medical field just doesn't seem to benefit from technology like other things except for outcome (for the most part). I know from very personal experience that the world would be saving trillions if there was a cure for Alzheimers disease.

I think you just answered your own question. Most of our developments over the past 50 years have been in making conditions more treatable. Yet we haven't found many cures. Consequently, we treat chronic conditions indefinitely. That has lengthened our lifespans, and dramatically increased our healthcare costs.

The solution is in funding medical research to find cures. Obviously, it isn't in limiting funding for stem cell research, like Bush did, for example.

- wolf

 

[XZeroII]

My wife has a chronic knee injury which only prevents her from doing certain activities like playing tennis. It doesn't even prevent all forms of excersize.

Anyway, hair splitting and analogies aside, I hardly think that not being able to have sex is a minor or trivial issue. Whether sex is "recreational" or not, it is very important to people.

- wolf

Tell the 12 people who will lose their jobs that. Is it worth 1 million dollars for some loser to get a hardon? This is Milwaukee. I live 20 minutes from Milwaukee and trust me, you don't want those people reproducing. I would much rather have more teachers.

 

[werepossum]

Most of you are missing something quite important - these drugs CAN be paid for out of pocket. If one needs Viagra for sex (and it seems to me that Internet access is cheaper, but to each his own I suppose) and insurance does not cover it, then perhaps one needs to prioritize other expenses. Teachers make pretty darned good money, especially for the effort and the accountability - we're not talking about minimum wage earners or people living on S.S. disability here. Maybe you don't get that flat screen TV you wanted; maybe this year you vacation at home.

Our entitlement mentality has betrayed us into thinking that health care magically appears. Well, the Magic Cupboard is getting a bit bare, and it's time to man up in order to, um, man up.

 

[woolfe9999]

Most of you are missing something quite important - these drugs CAN be paid for out of pocket. If one needs Viagra for sex (and it seems to me that Internet access is cheaper, but to each his own I suppose) and insurance does not cover it, then perhaps one needs to prioritize other expenses. Teachers make pretty darned good money, especially for the effort and the accountability - we're not talking about minimum wage earners or people living on S.S. disability here. Maybe you don't get that flat screen TV you wanted; maybe this year you vacation at home.

Our entitlement mentality has betrayed us into thinking that health care magically appears. Well, the Magic Cupboard is getting a bit bare, and it's time to man up in order to, um, man up.

Yup, it can be purchased out of pocket. The same is true for any other medication. The question is whether this particular medication deserves to be covered by insurance just as any other medication. Is the ability to have sex an essential of life, or is it a mere "perk?" If it's a perk, then you're right, it's not any more or less important than a flat screen TV, and it's a tradeoff for the individual to make of one or the other. If it is more of an essential, then it seems it should be covered by insurance in general (be it public or private).

So far as teachers go, the relevant question here is whether this drug is covered by your typical, average private insurance. I see no reason they should have less coverage than someone in the private sector. And I actually don't know if Viagra is usually covered by private insurance. I only recall that it generally was not when it was originally released. It may well be that private insurance still usually does not cover it, in which case I agree with you that the teachers shouldn't have coverage for it.

- wolf