Studs on Medicare
A caller suggested we write an editorial denouncing the decision to cover sexual-performance drugs under Medicare. Most of our editorials focus on state and local subjects, so I'll use this forum to attack this topic:
It's absurd.
The Associated Press quoted a Medicare spokesman as explaining, "The law says if it's an FDA-approved drug and it is medically necessary, it has to be covered."
Come on. We have plenty of real medical needs going unaddressed because Americans can't afford to pay for them. Yet we're going to start forking out money for senior citizens to get a Viagra boost?
I'd like to know what qualifies as a medical necessity. Can we require the patient's wife to testify to that?
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Doug, don't be surprised if some patients' wives are only too happy to so testify. :-)
Posted on February 3, 2005 6:18 AM
I bet some of the wives would testify against the subsidy...
Posted on February 3, 2005 9:21 AM
Absurd? Yes. But no more so than the concept of government stealing our money in order to buy non-sex-related drugs in the name of good will. I don't care if it's Viagara or cancer medicine, it shouldn't be provided by nanny government.
Posted on February 3, 2005 11:21 AM
Yeah, Rusty, it's certainly preferable to allow our neighbors to die of treatable diseases rather than pulling together as a society to aid them.
Viagra? No. Cancer drugs? Yes. Hell yes.
Posted on February 4, 2005 5:55 PM
Ed, you're living under the misconception that if the government doesn't provide it then it won't happen.
I'm all for pulling together as a society and WILLINGLY helping someone, whether cancer patient or crack head. But that's not what taxation and government meddling is about.
Posted on February 6, 2005 9:58 AM
I think so.
Posted on February 18, 2005 3:31 AM