A Modest Proposal

[ljm2002]

Given that the treatment of erectile dysfunction merely encourages men who are too old or sick to go ahead and have sex anyway, and given that the inability to have sex is not in itself life threatening, and given that these treatments contribute to promiscuity as well as unwanted pregnancies, these treatments must therefore be viewed as contributing to the overall moral decay of our society. Therefore, I propose the following amendment to the health care bill that is currently under consideration:

(a) IN GENERAL -
No funds authorized or appropriated by the Act (or amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any treatment or medication for erectile dysfunction or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of erectile dysfunction, except in the case where a man suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the man in danger of death unleass such treatment is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the erectile dysfunction itself, or unless the erectile dysfunction is the result of an accidental injury that can be demonstrated has occurred through no fault of the man.

(b) OPTION TO PURCHASE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN -
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate or supplemental coverage for erectile ysfunction treatments or medications for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such treatments, so long as-
(1) Such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
(2) Such coverage or plan is not purchased using-
(a) individual premium payments required for an Exchange-participating health benefits pan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(b) other nonfederal funds required to receive a federal payment, including State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

(c) OPTION TO OFFER SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN -
Notwithstanding section 303(b), nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering

entity from offering separat supplementa coverage for erectile dysfunction treatments or medications for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such treatments, so long as-
(1) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirele with funds not

authorized or appropriated by this Act;
(2) administrative costs and all services offered through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and
(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for erectile dysfunction treatments or medications for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover erectile dysfunction treatments or medications for which funding is prohibited under this section.

[Atman]

1. One serious problem -- Viagra is used as a post-op heart medication

Patients who have heart surgery are often prescribed Viagra afterward to keep the blood flowing to the other extremities, not just the johnson.

.

[ljm2002]

3. The amendment refers specifically to ED...

...not to other conditions.

[Avalux]

9. So limit it that indication - post cardiac surgery prophylaxis.

Docs are banned from prescribing for anything other than that.

(I'd like to see it enforced, lol).

[MNDemNY]

2. I hope you are not equating this with the Stupak amendment.

There is NO parallel.

[ljm2002]

4. Equating the two conditions? Of course not...

...but there is an equivalence: namely, one medical condition is being singled out as something that has to be limited by statute, while all other medical conditions are left to the discretion of health providers.

So if we're going to go around limiting allowed funding and coverage for certain conditions, then I think it's time to expand the list. If there are people who don't want to pay for someone else's elective abortion, then surely there are just as many of us who don't want to pay for someone else's elective hard-on.

[MNDemNY]

5. I think such a comparison diminishes the Stupak Amendments' effect on womans civil rights.

[ljm2002]

6. Perhaps the thread title provides a clue to my intent...

...i.e., satire.

On the other hand, the serious point behind the satire is that this is a medical decision, and as such should not be singled out legislatively. If we are going to start singling out medical procedures, then let's go for it. My tax dollars are just as green as those of the rabid religious right, yet they get to claim a moral right not to spend "their" tax dollars on "my" treatment. Well, then, I claim the same right.

The good thing about this proposal is that it would also hit Big Pharma in the pocketbook, since Viagra and Cialis are big moneymakers for them.

But yes, it is satire.

[MNDemNY]

7. Touche!

;) :thumbsup: my bad.

[RadicalGeek]

8. It may be satire

But it does make a bit of sense--IMO.

[quaker bill]

10. Sounds good to me

I am fine with not paying for other people's erections. I would like single payer, however, it would not bother me a bit if this service was excluded.