Hard Times
This makes sense to me:
I don’t want my tax dollars touching even one milimeter of that overly engorged expense.I realize that many people disagree with my moral objections to men getting erections which God clearly doesn’t want them to get, but my principles on this are more important to me than theirs are to them. So too bad. If you want a boner, pay for it yourself.
And I think those noxious advertisements for the drugs should be banned as well, if only for aesthetic reasons. Having to watch my baby boomer fellows wail “Viva Viagra” is offensive to anyone who has any taste in music.
I’m sure a lot of people have “serious moral concerns” about the government paying for erections, and as we know, all you have to say is that you have “serious moral concerns” and then no one can question your position. I know I don’t want my tax dollars paying for Senator Ensign to be able to bang his workers or Rush Limbaugh’s dalliances in the Dominican (although there is a good chance he bought the Viagra the same way he buys the rest of his drugs- on the street). If our Republican leadership and the panty-sniffing Blue Dogs can’t get it up the way God intended, with a dildo in the anus while wearing two wetsuits, I don’t see why the American taxpayer should be subsidizing insurance for the little blue pill. Public or private.
And that goes especially for the C Street pricks like Stupak.
John +4
calipygian
For a second there I thought Digby was talking about the Iraq War.
Demo Woman
Lay off the root beers, you’re making to much sense.
paradox
On one level the commercials are offensive, yes, but over time I’ve come to enjoy them, it’s not that bad to briefly watch women be happy about having sex.
It’s extremely small beer, of course, but most of television is a sick, arid wasteland of noxious, stupid manipulation and goading. Women happy about sex, well, all right.
calipygian
@paradox:
I thought those commercials were about men happy they could throw a spiral through a tire swing.
malraux
Random note: That little blue pill kept my grandmother up and alive for her last year and a half.
dmsilev
You mean those commercials weren’t funded by the outdoors bathtub industry? I’m shocked.
-dms
kommrade reproductive vigor
Wetsuits?
arguingwithsignposts
You know what happens if you shut off ins. coverage for b0ner pills?
Hard Times Come Again No More (James Taylor and YoYo Ma)
Lots of other great covers of this song at this YouTube search.
BTW, I bet this post clogs up the moderation queue.
beltane
If you think about it, these pills’ only purpose is to lead men to sin. Devout Christian men throughout history have sought to save themselves from the temptations of the flesh through prayer, devices such as hairshirts, and, yes, even castration. Any real Christian would consider ED to be a blessing, not a medical condition. Penis pills are the ultimate in wickedness. If these people want to show us how pious they are, they should protest in front of their local Rite-Aid.
Remember, behind every abortion is an erect male member.
McGeorge Bundy
Breaking news on TRMS via the AP: Obama rejects all options for Afghanistan given to him. One assumes this includes sending more troops.
So, if it’s true, I think it’s pretty damned good news, and certainly a surprise, at least for me.
BillCinSD
I thought serious moral concerns only counted if they could be related to the Bible
beltane
@calipygian: I thought she was talking about banker bonuses. They are still more offensive than banker boners.
General Winfield Stuck
Well now wait just a goshdarned minute. We don’t want to lose our heads over being stingy. If gawd hadn’t of wanted solid erections he wouldn’t have invented via grra. Bet you never though of it that way, you soshulist dogs you.
DougJ
If you outlaw erections, only outlaws will have erections.
General Winfield Stuck
@DougJ:
I want a fully automatic one.
parksideq
“2 Wetsuits, 1 Dildo” is a meme that’ll never get old with me.
Back on topic, someone needs to tell the government to stay out of my pill drawer. After all, erections have consequences, am I right, teabaggers?
Nick
to be honest, I’m not a opposed to the Stupak Amendment, but I’m just as not opposed to an amendment that would strip federal funds for Viagra either.
Neutron Flux
@McGeorge Bundy: From the Fort Hood remarks, to the footage at Arlington Cemetery today, I was thinking…...
This fella is setting something up here. I didn’t really know what is was going to be, but I thought there was a game afoot here.
It seems to me that that this whole CIC thing is making a big impact on this fella.
Jorge
Well, I could care less if folks use Viagra and if I am ever in that, er, position, I’ll use it. But at $18 a pill and no health consequences for the person taking it, I also don’t want my tax dollars paying for it. Well, unless they finally come up with Niagra, the female version for un-horny women.
The Dangerman
From the linked article:
$15 a, um, pop? Wouldn’t a trip to an Adult Video store be far less expensive?
arguingwithsignposts
@The Dangerman:
That’s got to be at least a three-month supply, right? I can’t imagine anyone using more than one of those a day. I think the woman would even get tired of that.
When does Vi-a-gra go off patent? Then you’ll have a generic version at 10.99 a bottle.
Demo Woman
@McGeorge Bundy: To repeat what I said below, we might have a real President… Just maybe…
McGeorge Bundy
@Neutron Flux: Could be. I certainly hope so.
geg6
OT, but this Afghanistan news seems huge. Obama rejecting all current options and insisting that any new options are all about turning over combat ops to the Afghans? Looks like there was a lot of backroom stuff with the ambassador and Colin Powell advising him to deliberate more and to reject what he has been presented so far. Wow. Some crazy stuff and I’ll be very interested in more detail about this. Back on topic, I’m with Digby. I have great moral reservations about my tax dollars going to boner pills. And I want all insurance coverage that might be in the public option or the exchange to exclude boner pills from all coverage. And since most of those who need such pills get Medicare, I want Medicare to change so it does not cover these evil pills either. After all, that’s my money, too. This will certainly give us a huge cost savings in addition to assuaging my need for all of my tax dollars to go to health care which meets my moral standards. Should save more overall than not covering abortions. No need for abortion coverage in Medicare, amirite?
Joel
i actually do think that viagra should be excluded from standard health care coverage. it’s a cosmetic expense and should be treated as such.
Joel
@Joel: @malraux: with the notable exception of when sildanafil and other PDE inhibitors are used to treat heart conditions, mountain sickness, etc.
valdivia
also OT—interesting to note too that after weeks and weeks of leaks that asserted Obama was sending all the troops to Af. now we hear he was seriously debating what to do like it should be done.
McGeorge Bundy
@geg6: Where are you getting the Colin Powell bit?
paradox
Yes, home, the commercials are about men primarily, but there’s always a female partner there totally chipper about the whole scene.
Annie
Just remember, your grandchildren will have to pay for their erections…
General Winfield Stuck
@Annie:
LOL!
Xenos
The issue is really a moral one. Middle aged men get carried away when they get started on Viagra, and often take on mistresses. We must not be promoting such slutty behavior with our tax dollars.
In the interest of protecting families, I would suggest that married men be required to notify their wives, and get their written assent, when seeking to get their prescriptions for Viagra filled.
Xenos
The issue is really a moral one. Middle aged men get carried away when they get started on V—gra, and often take on mistresses. We must not be promoting such slutty behavior with our tax dollars.
In the interest of protecting families, I would suggest that married men be required to notify their wives, and get their written assent, when seeking to get their prescriptions filled.
(Comment reposted due to forbidden name of boner pill causing immoderate moderation.)
mai naem
Also too, the men who think they will need them can buy a rider to provide. I mean we aren’t making the pill illegal or anything. I mean all the American manly men that I know are going willing to admit that they may not be able to get it up somewhere down the road .
Anne Laurie
@malraux:
They didn’t work as well for our little dog’s pulmonary hypertension, unfortunately. And my Spousal Unit had to pick up the prescription at the local chain drugstore, because it wasn’t stocked at the veterinary hospital… yet.
C. G.
I don’t think Congress would think twice about stripping anything from the public exchange or Medicare. If you want to get their attention,strip the little blue pill from the Congressional health plans. Take away their nifty on-site doctor while you’re at it; house calls are expensive and we have a deficit to worry about.
Ash Can
This is why God, in her infinite wisdom, created dildos.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
You should have titled this:
Will this soften the opposition to abortion coverage?
or something along that line…lol!
I agree John but I would expect the Repubs to retaliate by writing the No P e n i s Left Behind Act or The Endangered Woody Act. Everyone knows that men don’t make babies, wimmen do!
I am sure that Republican support for removing blue pill coverage from a government insurance plan will be very flaccid, limp as a overboiled noodle. They are all a bunch of limp dicks, they need all the support they can get.
LD50
What’s to say the men wouldn’t just use the Vi*gra with their wives on Saturday and their mistresses on Friday?
Violet
Totally agree with this post. If men were denied boner pills, they might have a different view on denying women certain treatments or medications. It still astounds me that birth control pills aren’t covered when boner pills are. That’s just shocking to me.
All that being said, there are off-label uses for V1@gra. I know women that have taken it for off-label uses and it’s worked for them. So it’s not completely a vanity product.
Wile E. Quixote
DougJ
And if the students at Va. Tech and the troops at Fort Hood had had erections those two tragedies never would have happened.
El Cid
Sweetwater Festive Ale +4.
SFAW
What’s that noise? It sounds like grandchildren all over America going “Eewwwww!”
Church Lady
You’ll get no arguement from me. If you can’t fuck without federal intervention, then give it up or pull out your wallet. I know I’m in the minority here, but I feel the same way about abortion. I firmly agree with your right to choose – I just don’t think I should have to fund it.
John Sears
@Church Lady: The Stupak Amendment would also potentially strip abortion coverage out of private plans that took unrelated money in the larger bill for Wellness Programs or the Temporary Reinsurance funds.
So, if the Feds pay for your health plan to add a weight counselor, or help your large employer give some older employees early retirement, you might lose your abortion coverage.
Church Lady
@John Sears: I had to sit down and think about it, but over the last 33 years, give or take, I have had health insurance provided by eight different employers (myself being one of them). In all that time, not one single policy ever covered elective abortion. Medically necessary yes, elective no.
After hearing percentages of insurance policies supposedly covering elective abortions, I started asking women I know if their insurance policies cover elective abortion. So far, I haven’t found anyone that has a policy that does. However, in each and every case, their policies did cover what were deemed to be medically necessary abortions. These women are teachers (public and private school), attorney’s, bankers, insurance agents, sales representatives, and doctors, just to list some of the variety of professions. If they chose to have an elective abortion, they would have to pull out their wallet, just like I would.
So, no, I’m not worked up over Stupak. It doesn’t overturn Roe, it just continues the policy that any insurance sponsored by the federal government (even if paid for with private dollars) will not pay cover elective abortion. In other words, people covered under the health care bill will have the same coverage provisions that seemingly every single woman I know has.
CDC – Ghetto Aint Hard, Ghetto is Hell
[...] Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » Hard Times [...]
Steeplejack
@Xenos:
Win.
Jack
Anyone doubt patriarchy?
Abortion, bad.
Erections, good.
That is all.
kay
Next goes birth control, because, as every fundamentalist religious knows, but few will admit, chemical contraception can be an abortificant, and is considered one by hard-line religious, and that’s the offocial position of the Catholic Church. It’s also right there on the insert.
Fundamentalist religious always over-reach.
Always.
It’s not like they we haven’t been through this before, either.
slag
@DougJ: That slogan should definitely be in Viagra’s next ad campaign.
triplepoint
This is the first volley in the push for erection finance reform.
Lurked
@Church Lady:
The Stupak amendment does not have any exceptions for health of the mother or for fetal deformity. Only “life” of the mother. Many private policies cover therapeutic abortions required for severe fetal deformity or for the health or future fertility of the mother where her life is not directly in danger. And since abortions of that type are frequently fairly late, they are much more expensive than first-trimester abortions and often require hospitalization. But coverage of those is banned.
dcdl
I’m assuming that not paying for abortions with federal money is because it can be an elective procedure and not because of someone else’s religious or moral ideologies. So then I suggest an amendment banning federal money for all elective surgeries to be fair.
SFAW
One hopes/assumes you were being tongue-in-cheek. But it does raise the question of what should be considered “elective” surgery. Were I a big enough dickhead (oh wait, I am), I could find a reason to classify almost any surgery as elective.
So who decides? Et quis custodiet ipsos deciderers?
John Sears
@Church Lady: Sorry. Check the Stupak amendment again.
It says that it only allows abortion for abortions that threaten the mother’s life.
So if a pregnancy will leave you sterile, say, or causes serious mental or physical complications that won’t kill you, it’s still ineligible for funds under Stupak to get an abortion.
Here, you should read it for yourself before commenting on it further.
http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment
I’ll quote it for you:
That’s a much narrower definition than ‘medically necessary’.
Blogging and what’s in the future for the IO? « The Implied Observer
[...] Ammendment in Health Care Reform legislation and the absence of a ban on viagra coverage, Cole writes: I’m sure a lot of people have “serious moral concerns” about the government paying for [...]