Amazon.com Widgets
  • What's the harm?

    I this this is the governments Way to control the population. Only the rich and can afford it. If you can't afford it you don't need to be be intimate with your spouse.. I'm done having kids..
    The wife and I finally have time to play! Drop the pice so the middle class can have fun..

  • Viagra (sildenifil) treats MORE than E.D!!

    To those of you who say that there is no medical purpose for Viagra...Check your facts! Viagra aka sildenifil, was originally developed and used to specifically to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension or high blood pressure in the lungs by dilating the blood vessels in men AND women. An effective treatment for hypertension and cardiovascular disease, it works systematically throughout the body; it helps the heart pump more efficiently thus lowering blood pressure. The fact that it causes male erection is because of this better blood flow and is a SIDE EFFECT, one that does not occur without sexual stimulation. For insurance companies to not include such an effective medication in their formulary is shortsighted and cruel. Many medications are prescribed for off label conditions, but their main purpose is not forgotten.
    Shame on the media and the medical profession for trivializing an important lifesaving medication and shame on Pfizer for charging such obscene prices for it. Shame on the insurance companies for putting their bottom line first.

  • Viagra (sildenifil) treats MORE than E.D!!

    To those of you who say that there is no medical purpose for Viagra...Check your facts! Viagra aka sildenifil, was originally developed and used to specifically to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension or high blood pressure in the lungs by dilating the blood vessels in men AND women. An effective treatment for hypertension and cardiovascular disease, it works systematically throughout the body; it helps the heart pump more efficiently thus lowering blood pressure. The fact that it causes male erection is because of this better blood flow and is a SIDE EFFECT, one that does not occur without sexual stimulation. For insurance companies to not include such an effective medication in their formulary is shortsighted and cruel. Many medications are prescribed for off label conditions, but their main purpose is not forgotten.
    Shame on the media and the medical profession for trivializing an important lifesaving medication and shame on Pfizer for charging such obscene prices for it. Shame on the insurance companies for putting their bottom line first.

  • Those who say "No..."

    As a 44 year old man who has suffered with ED for the last 15 years, I wonder how many of those who say "No" have suffered ED, and I don't mean the occasional, "It happens to all guys" episode. Full on mental desire, and no ability to act on it. The impact on my life has been significant. Stress on my marriage, depression, anxiety, all of which continue to snowball. Suicide has been avoided twice, but barely. And, no, I wasn't going to kill mused because I can't have sex...But that fact, and the fact that treatment is not affordable, fueled the depression, anxiety, stress, and marital strain that did lead me down that road. And I guarantee you, the money my insurance company has put out to medicate the symptoms of my ED far outpaces what they would have paid had they covered whatever treatment might work, be it Viagra or something more drastic. The anti-whatever pills I have been on, and am still on, cost my insurance company TONS more than any course of treatment for ED, be it continuing treatment or a one-time surgery. It blows me away they would rather pay forever for an anti-depressant that has more health risks that the little blue pill and costs 6 times as much, not to mention the regular counseling sessions...Yeah, let's do that for the next 40 years instead of address the root issue and improve overall quality of life. SMH.

    Treating erectile dysfunction isn't just about sex. It is about keeping the whole person healthy. I can't make love to my wife. Yes, there are other ways to express love and be intimate, but not being able to share the most intimate expression of love hardens everything except the part that needs it! My heart, psyche, self-concept, self-confidence and so much more has been chipped away at by this debilitating medical issue so long that the best parts of who I was, am, and can be, are calloused, withered, and atrophied. If you haven't lived it, you won't ever understand. You simply can't know the emotional, mental and spiritual anguish.

    So, I respectfully dismiss every "No" on this poll unless the person casting that vote has lived with ED for a significant duration.

    It's not"just sex." It's a significant part of being a whole and healthy human, to be able to express oneself so intimately. To be denied that is cruel.

  • Comparing birth control meds and abortions to ED meds is an apples/oranges, probably politicized comparison.

    ED is a medical pathology. Erection drugs like Viagra treat the signal symtom of ED in concept as antihypertensives treat the signal symptom of hypertension. Taking a med to prevent conception treats no pathology; it simply interferes with a natural physical result to effect a lifestyle decision. Abortions are surgery, not medications. And again, abortions interfere with a natural physical result to effect a a decision. Very simply, ED is a medical pathology, or condition. Viagra is a drug to treat this condition. That is why it should be covered. Pregnancy is not a medical pathology. THAT is the difference. The decision to cover birth control meds or abortions would be made on completely different criteria as pregnancy is not a disease.

  • Viagra can enhance mental and physical health.

    Antidepressants and anti anxiety medications are covered, but the need for them might be decreased if men of all ages were able to maintain healthy physical relationships. As long as it is only prescribed for men with ED and not for frivolous use, it should be covered by all insurance. Lack of coverage is an outdated policy that doesn't take into account the youthful attitudes of Boomers regarding being active in all ways.

  • Yes to reason

    Sex is a part of life and influences well being. It is directly related to good health. There is no justification for denying coverage of ED drugs, especially when many marginally effective and sometimes incredibly expensive or potentially harmful drugs and treatments are readily approved for the benefit of a money grabbing US medical system.

  • Radical Prostectomy is a good reason.

    For men who have dad prostate cancer, Erectile Dysfunction Drugs are the first stepping stone for rehabilitation. They also shorten the rehab time to less than a year from 2 years typical. Studies claim a return to preoperative performance without drugs is possible. So, for the rehab period, absolutely...After that it's sorta like breast implants....Cosmetic. Not covered.

  • It supports positive mental health

    A healthy sex life leads to a healthy life, as well as a happy partner. Simple as that. Sure, a life without sex CAN be happy, but its so much better WITH a good, consistent sex life. It also can help a mans self esteem and overall mood, sometimes fighting off depression.

  • Quality of life

    It seems as though some people feel this is a fake disease. Migraines affect a persons quality of life and they are not life threatening, yet insurance is willing to shell out more money for these prescriptions over the sexual health of another individual. If a company is truly dead set on only providing life saving and necessary treatments, I am sure many people would hate to see their formularies drastically reduced. Contraception is not a medically necessary prescription yet it is widely covered by many insurance plans. Kinda a double standard here.

  • I say no.

    I do not think that there is a good reason as to why this drug should be covered by insurance. It is merely a luxury to use, and is not vital to the health of a person if they do not have access to these class of drugs out there.

  • No Viagra should not be covered by insurance

    No, I do not believe that Viagra should be covered by insurance. I think that insurance should only cover drugs that are needed to sustain life and help someone keep their vital organs alive and thriving. Viagra is not needed to live, so it should not be covered by insurance.

  • No Viagra should not be covered by insurance

    No, I do not believe that Viagra should be covered by insurance. I believe that insurance should cover medicines that are essential to life like those medications that help someone with heart or kidney trouble. Since Viagra is not needed to sustain someone medically, I believe that it therefore does not need to be covered by insurance.

  • No Viagra should not be covered by health insurance

    Viagra does not cure a health problem but rather a performance problem in one's sexual life. You do not need Viagra to live and it does not provide much medical benefit such as other medicines that cure diseases. Viagra only stimulates the abdominal nervous system to maintain an erection via parasympathetic vasodilation. It does not have any real medical benefit other than that and should not need to be covered by health insurance.

  • No, it is not necessary

    Viagra should not be covered by insurance since it is used for recreational purposes and is not necessary. Even though there is evidence to support the fact that having sex is good four your health, I believe people will take advantage of getting Viagra through insurance. Having sex is usually for recreational purposes, and therefore should not be covered.

  • Viagra Should Never Be Covered by Insurance

    A pill to enable sexual activity, covered by insurance? What next, insurance coverage for diet supplements? Insurance coverage for body building enhancers? Viagra is advertised as for those who are healthy enough for sexual activity, well, it should also be for those who evidently can afford sexual activity. No, Viagra should not be paid for by insurance. Just another area for the insurance companies to make an undeserved buck or two.

  • No, its not needed.

    Why should it even be insured? Viagra is just basically for sexual pleasure as stated over and over. Not being able to get or keep an erection isn't going to kill you, it just lets you have longer hard ons. I know migraines aren't going to kill you, but failing to get an erection will not kill you either. In fact, i'm trying to find an anti viagra.

  • No, it is hypocritical for insurance to cover drugs like Viagra for men while denying women coverage for birthcontrol.

    As the primary objection for women receiving birthcontrol is based upon religious reasons, there should be an equivalent objection against viagra type drugs for the same reasons. If one were to follow the same thought, then God's will is not being served by these drugs--approving insurance coverage for men's ed drugs and denying women birthcontrol is pure hypocracy.

  • Hypocritical Health Care Coverage

    Many insurance companies refuse to cover abortion, birth control, etc. For women but they will pay for an enhancement drug for men, promoting more sex? That's just kind of screwed up. It's still a mans world. No denying that! So NO NO NO...Viagra should NOT be covered. Hypocritical much?! I think so.

  • Government, no. Private, maybe.

    Viagra is not a necessity and therefore should not be covered by government funded health insurance. If an individual would like to purchase the drug they can do so with their own disposable income. Alternatively they can seek private health insurance, either through their employer or entirely on their own, in order to receive Viagra. The government can not afford to be spending money unnecessary drugs.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.