Should insurance companies be required to pay for Viagra prescriptions?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should insurance companies pay for Viagra prescriptions?
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
No.
Begs the question though: Are insurance companies compelled to pay for Viagra prescriptions? Do you know?
I don't know about required to - but some Catholic institutions do pay for Viagra and other such medications for men.
According to Richard Doerflinger, the Associate Director of Pro-Life Actitivites of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholics institutions will not pay for vasectomies because he says, "We have the same objection to male sterilization as to the female variety".
When asked about any hypocrisy involved in paying for Viagra, he said that many Catholic-based health plans are now adding warnings that such drugs "should be prescribed for a medically identifiable problem to prevent wide abuse."
I can see where Viagra prescription abuse would run rampant among institutions where sex is viewed as primarily for procreation only.
My only question and I'm not going to get worked up over this is - do the Catholic-based institutions who do pay for Viagra, et. al., only prescribe it to married men and young married men at that? Do they ask about the child-bearing capacity of their wives?
The men that I see in commercials for these drugs are not young and not seemingly interested in procreating. They and their female partner - I'm assuming it's intended to be a wife - both look too old to be interested in bearing children. They just want to enjoy each other. I don't ever see young couples in these commercials.
I do smell a whiff of hypocrisy here, but having recognized this women's contraception issue to be a political maneuver to divide Americans and not a genuine interest in women's health and women's issues - I just don't really care anymore if the Catholic-based institutions want to pay for men's viagra which is for one thing only and refuse to acknowledge the medical benefits of female contraception that has nothing to do with pregnancy prevention.
It is what it is. Conservative people need to stop fighting over this issue (for the time being) and unite in finding a competent person to lead the country.
It's their choice. If they can use it as an incentive to join their program, and make it financially beneficial to them, then why not ? They should not be forced to, nor should they be barred from it.
Last edited by a moderator:
DiamondLady
New Member
I cracked up the other night when comedian Bill Engvall commented on Cialis (on a commercial I saw) "If that stuff really worked, wouldn't they be in the SAME bathtub???"
Required, no. I don't think you can require an insurance company to do anything, but I think it should be available just like any other drug.
Required, no. I don't think you can require an insurance company to do anything, but I think it should be available just like any other drug.
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
the point of the OP and the original poster is to get people to say that the insurance companies ought to be forced to pay for something for me. Then he can point to how awful and inconsistent republicans are. They don't want insurance companies to be forced to pay for womens contracetives, but we want them for men.
Many of these posts are simply democratic talking points by democratic shills for the purpose of honing their arguments so they can justify voting for President Obama.
Many of these posts are simply democratic talking points by democratic shills for the purpose of honing their arguments so they can justify voting for President Obama.
An insurance policy is a private contract.
No party should be forced into a contract that they do not agree with.
If an insurance company wants to offer benefit xyz and the insured agrees to pay the premium in exchange for the enumerated benefits - everyone else - especially the government - should stay out of it.
No party should be forced into a contract that they do not agree with.
If an insurance company wants to offer benefit xyz and the insured agrees to pay the premium in exchange for the enumerated benefits - everyone else - especially the government - should stay out of it.