Why should insurance cover Viagra and not abortion?

[uncommon]

Why is a man's erection more important than a woman's unwanted or unsafe pregnancy?

Can anyone honestly give a rational and reasonable explanation for why a man's ability to engage in sex, which may or may not be procreative, is so important that it should be covered by insurance?

Has the right ever spoken to this? Has the left?

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Good question.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. duplicate post

[ceile]

3. What about insurance that doesn't cover birth control

but will cover viagra....? Makes no sense....

[uncommon]

6. Exactly --

a woman's fertility or lack thereof is a political issue, but a man's impotence and the treatment of is considered politically neutral.

[Touchdown]

4. Although I agree with you, six pills a month isn't exactly "coverage".

So as with all things American, Viagra coverage is also sex negative. Abortion should be covered though. It's absolutely wrong not to.

[uncommon]

10. 6 pills a month is more than a lot of insurers cover for birth control --

which for many women is 0 pills a month.

6 pills a month is at least 6 opportunities to engage in sexual intercourse. Why is this politically neutral but birth control for the women who may engage in those same 6 acts of sexual intercourse is not?

[Touchdown]

28. That is discrimination.

Not having a wife, some of this stuff has been news to me over the last few years.

But even at the paltry level of drug allowances for viagra (which does serve a different purpose than BCP or abortion), it's still discrimination, and it isn't right.

[uncommon]

44. Should insurance be covering a daily erection?

That seems gratuitous.

[Touchdown]

54. I didn't say that. Geez! I'm on your side.

Why the hateful stance?

For the record, I don't think twice a week is unreasonable, considering the prostate cancer risks.

[rucky]

5. Look who's making the rules. n/t

[Triana]

Bingo! n/t

[ljm2002]

7. Good question...

...and you'll get answers like "Well Viagra can be used to treat heart disease, too, so there!" and "It's a quality of life issue, how dare you try and attack that!". Really I have seen those responses here at DU (okay I may have added a bit of the snark part -- but I did not change either the substance or the tone).

People say it's a "moral issue" because of the "baby". Of course it's not a baby until late in gestation. And the late-term abortions that are an especially contentious issue are (a) rare and (b) almost never done unless in cases of severe fetal issues or critical danger to the mother's life. As for the other, early abortions, women should have the say. In fact they do. Women all over the world have always -- ALWAYS -- had abortions, and they will continue to do so. The only question is, do they have access to safe abortions or not.

We continue to accept that 18-year-old men can be trusted with firearms in a foreign land, to kill whoever they feel they need to (see: the firefight video put out by Wikileaks); yet 40-year-old women cannot be trusted with a decision about their own procreation.

[dsc]

34. no it isn't

the opposite is true, viagra is contraindicated for heart patients.

[asdjrocky]

8. Not a good reason, but a real one-

Fat rich old white men still rule the world.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. Quite a question..and it deserves to be answered. Along with....

What about low sperm count? Why is that more important than an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy? What about vasectomies? Are THEY covered???????????

Oh you double standard, you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[uncommon]

12. Vasectomies are routinely covered by insurance --

but I don't know about low sperm count treatments.

[Autumn]

11. Womens rights are used as a bargaining chip,

it's not the case with Viagra. I wonder what the cost difference is? I find the whole situation to be obscene.

[BrklynLiberal]

14. not even a bargaining chip...women's rights are considered expendable.not worth anything in a

negotiation.

[Autumn]

29. If you look back at the insurance finance reform bill

women's rights were used as a bargaining chip, as a sop to Stupak, but you are right they have proven to be expendable. And by a Democratic administration at that.

[truebrit71]

13. Because men don't get pregnant...if they did freedom of choice would be in the Bill of Rights..

..

[BrklynLiberal]

15. A long time ago I heard, "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

[Patsy Stone]

17. If men could get pregnant

abortion would not only be legal, it would be free with a fill-up.

[BrklynLiberal]

26. LOLOLOL

[laughingliberal]

16. Could be due to the patriarchal, misogynistic society in which we live...

together with Big Pharma making a killing on Viagra.

[Burma Jones]

18. Easy, Abortions are not provided by a handful of Corporations

Tie abortions to Shareholder returns, and opposition will wane....or at least the publicity surrounding opposition will wane.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Because boners are a sacrament. eom

[valerief]

21. I do believe you've hit the phallus on the head. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

27. lololololol.....

[Deep13]

20. It ought to cover both. nt

[zipplewrath]

22. Not sure which reason you want

The "technical" reason that most companies were basically "forced" into covering it was that it was a treatment for a "disease" or "abnormality". This is not a trivial issue to people who have conditions that aren't particularly life threatening, but have certain real "disfunctions" associated with them. There are abnormalities of the body which insurance companies would love not to "cover". A good example is breast augmentation surgery after a mastectomy, or a glass eye for someone who has lost theirs to accident or disease. Plastic surgery constantly fights insurance companies on just how much "work" will be covered after accidents. The government, over the years, has tended (at state levels quite often) to force insurance companies to cover these things. So when Viagra and its varients came along, there was a push, supported by many other groups, to have it covered since it was a "disfunction".

Pregnancy isn't going to ever be treated as a disfunction. Infertility yes, but not pregnancy.

You're getting into a delicate area of public health care, which is what do you pay for? When do you suggest to someone that their condition, while definitely a "loss" of function or ability, isn't "worth it" to treat? Is a woman, in her late 30's and infertile, a subject for fertility treatments? 40's? 50's? Is a 20 year old man allowed to get a penal implant after an accident? How about a prostetic testicle? 30? 40? 50? Is a 50 year old man allowed to get viagra if he's married to a 30 year old, but not a 60 year old? Do you stop paying for the viagra if he's "not healthy enough for sexual activity"?

I think insurance should pay for abortions, contraception, and other women's reproductive issues. And I don't think that has anything to do, one way or another, with viagra or other male related issues.

[cbdo2007]

31. Thank you for this response....

best answer is that they're different, but I'm afraid the OP won't see that. They'll only see it as a way that men are superior to women. These posts are always a trap where an actual explanation like yours isn't what they're looking for but rather a bash men thread :)

I wish infertility was covered but unfortunatly many states do not require coverage for infertility so unless you have a really good plan, you aren't getting any infertility benefits, even if it is a valid "abnormality" for a 25 year old.

[uncommon]

36. I don't think insurance shouldn't cover ED meds, I just think it should also cover

birth control and abortion.

Maybe some people don't think pregnancy is a "dysfunction" but I know there are plenty of pregnant women who would beg to differ.

[zipplewrath]

41. Um, who?

I really wanna hear some one make the case that pregnancy is a dysfunction or a disease. And I think it would be a mistake to try to characterize it that way merely to get abortions classified as covered conditions. Abortions are part of health care, and should be treated as such.

[saracat]

42. Insurance companies do NOT pay for infertility treatements AFAIK.

That is another inequality example. In fact that further erodes the argument for viagra as a womens"loss" of function isn't considered equal to a man's.

[uncommon]

46. Please, the sexual arousal pills for women that have been floated a few times can't even get FDA

approval, much less insurance coverage lol.

[cbdo2007]

47. Some states require that health insurance covers infertility treatments.

http://www.fertilitylifelines.com/payingfortreatment/state-mandatedinsurancelist.jsp

That link takes you to a list of the states that DO require it and the specifics of their laws.

As far as I know there is no state that requires viagra be covered - it is purely a business decision because that = lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$

Neither of those issues however has anything to do with whether or not abortion should be covered. They are all separate issues that should be considered separately.

[saracat]

52. Looks like 15 states are required to "offer" it not to "cover it". And most are NOT

required to "offer" IVF without which, whats the point for most couples. Still boils dowm to seperate coverage and who can afford it. Sound like a rider for the rich.

[cbdo2007]

56. So after I prove you wrong you're still not happy?

i can see how I'm going to get nowhere in this conversation....

[saracat]

57. Offering and covered are not the same. Sure , some companies "offer" it.

I have many friends who have had to pay completely out of their own pockets for fertility treatments. And only 15 states out of the 50 are even required to offer any form of fertility treatments. If you think that is parity, I guess you either aren't poor, live in another state , or aren't a woman. At the very least you don't particularly care and it isn't an issue that concerns you.

[CBR]

48. Some insurance does cover it. nt

[TBF]

23. Men own the insurance companies? nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Because "pro-life" is actually "pro-preggers". As are insurance companies.

It pays more to the insurance companies to have women "carry to term" than it does for an abortion.

[superduperfarleft]

25. If anything, insurance should cover abortions and NOT cover viagra,

Pregnancy is a potentially life-threatening medical condition. Not being able to get a boner sucks, but it certainly won't kill you or otherwise endanger your health.

[cbdo2007]

30. good lord, not this again....

Couldnt you have just searched for the last time we had this discussion?

[NC_Nurse]

32. Because it's a patriarchy. Still.

[Odin2005]

33. Misogyny, that's what.

[uppityperson]

35. Because men not being able to have erections is a quality of life, psychological issue, whereas

women who want an abortion is just about a bunch of sluts trying to stay thin.


:sarcasm: just in case because there are DUers who think this way.

[uncommon]

37. That is exactly it, you hit it on the head --

a man's quality of life is more important than a woman's.

[Radical Activist]

38. Because every sperm is sacred.

duh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Answer: It shouldn't. They should both be covered.

But, then, unfortunately we're a nation of busybodies, and nothing is more fun for a busybody than playing sex and morality police.

[SoCalDem]

40. because, medically , it "restores" a natural function

and the others "inhibit" a natural function..

[saracat]

43. Well then, fertility treatment for women ought to be coverned and AFAIK

they are NOT. People pay thousands of dollars for those treatments!

[SoCalDem]

45. Since the Bible mentions women being "barren", it may be an accepted "fate" of some women

and with the patriarchal society we live in., there may be a bit of
"well, you shouldn't have waited so long" in their denials... and fertility treatments involve a lot more cost than a "pill" to get a boner..

[Starry Messenger]

49. They should both be covered.

Judging from my memory of the last time this came up on DU when discussing the Stupak amendment, there are DUers who think:


--abortions cost more to the American tax-paying public than 18 years of healthcare for born children


--the irresponsible sluts deserve to suffer for their lack of judgment


--there are plenty of charities that provide money for women who can't pay for an abortion (seriously, they actually said this and meant it)


--Planned Parenthood provides abortions free of cost (ha!)*


--Erectile dysfunction is a "quality of life" issue, while being pregnant isn't (lolololol)




* http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures-4359.htm

[old mark]

50. Because Viagra is for men. nt

[LatteLibertine]

51. IMO

They should cover both or none at all.

[AngryAmish]

53. Well done, sir.

Excellent.

[retread]

55. This issue is raising its head again? Maybe I should bone up on the issues so I can give

a firm answer.