Nice going, moral busybodies
Kos reports that Santorum, Lott, Ensign and Grassley are cosponsoring S. 1113, a bill to ban all Federal funding for "sexual or erectile dysfuction":
A BILL
To provide that no Federal funds may be expended for the payment or reimbursement of a drug that is prescribed for the treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Prescription Drug Coverage Stewardship Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR DRUGS PRESCRIBED FOR THE TREATMENT OF SEXUAL OR ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION.
(a) Restriction-
(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be expended for the payment or reimbursement, including payment or reimbursement under the programs described in paragraph (2), of a drug that is prescribed for the treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction, including for such a drug that is prescribed to an individual who has a conviction for sexual abuse, sexual assault, or any other sexual offense.
(2) PROGRAMS DESCRIBED- The programs described in this paragraph are the medicaid program, the medicare program, the Federal employees health benefits program, the Defense Health Program, the program of medical care furnished by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, health related programs administered by the Indian Health Service, health related programs funded under the Public Health Service Act, and any other Federal health program.
(b) Effective Date- Subsection (a) shall apply to drugs dispensed on or after the date of enactment of this Act. [Emphasis added.]
This law doesn't just affect sex offenders, nor is it limited to Viagra or other PDE-5 drugs. These legislators obviously don't know or care how their politically-motivated legislation might affect people with serious illnesses and injuries. Viagra-like drugs are atypical amongst treatments for sexual dysfunction because they only provide temporary at high cost and don't treat the underlying condition. Whereas, many of treatments for sexual dysfunction correct anatomical and physiological abnormalities (injuries, hormonal imbalances, etc.). If you're curious about how many illnesses and treatments may be affected, check out these position statement on the assessment and treatment of male sexual dysfunction American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists (.pdf) and this article from the American Family Physician on the evaluation and treatment of female sexual dysfunction.
As Kos hints, this bill would prevent the VA from treating certain injuries sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan. Welcome home, boys. America salutes you.
I can see the wheels turning.
Lott:"We can't let rapists get viagra!"
Grassley:"If we pass a law singling out sex-criminals though, it will look like we approve of viagra for other people."
Lott:"We have to eliminate it for ALL federal health care funds then."
Grassley:"Even the congrssional health care plan?"
Lott:"Of course not. That would be a violation of seperation of powers!"
Grassley:"How?"
Lott:"It just would. Though I admit, I get a bit nervous whenever Santorum gets a woody."
Posted by: Njorl | June 01, 2005 at 03:55 PM
Oh, Lindsay, that's so great. First they come for your social security checks, then they come for your erections. These people are digging their own graves and (short of coughing up Supreme Court seats) I'm happy to let them.
Posted by: Quisp | June 01, 2005 at 03:58 PM
You can almost imagine them writing that bill, can't ya.
"We can use this to back up our Moral and Holy Pharmacists, ya know. This'll let them continue to withhold Magic Sex Drugs from the Evil Women Who Have Sex, while also preventing Evil Older Men Who Want to Have Sex from having sex, too! Surely Viagra is the only Magic Sex Drug out there... It's the only one I see on TV..."
And another side-effect of the bill is, it'll let Older Men Who Want to Have Sex and Have Enough Money to Buy Viagra ask themselves, "Why do the Republicans want to regulate what happens in my bedroom? Maybe I should start donating to the Democrats..."
Posted by: Scooter | June 01, 2005 at 04:08 PM
I once heard that a local Catholic hospital refused to remove both ovaries of women with ovarian cancer in one. Why? Even though medically advisable, due to the likelihood of recurrence, it would inadvertently result in birth control!
Hmmm, now it seems like just keeping folks alive might lead to behaviors of which wingnuts disapprove. Guess the only solution is to shut down all publicly funded health programs. Funny, that's what they've wanted all along!
Posted by: Ma'at's Feather | June 01, 2005 at 05:19 PM
I wonder -- if Viagra isn't covered, do you think we'll start seeing patients faking various types of heart problems or hypertension to get some other types of blood-pressure lowering drugs that might have similar effects? Maybe most of them don't work through the Nitrous Oxide release pathway, but anyway...
Posted by: Julian Elson | June 01, 2005 at 06:28 PM
Pfizer's probably frantically planning clinical trials of "off label" uses. I predict that we'll soon be reading about how great Viagra is for lung disease.
It's already been shown to help altitude sickness, but it's easier to convince an insurance company that you've got (cough, cough) lung disease than it is to claim perpetual altitude sickness.
Posted by: Lindsay Beyerstein | June 01, 2005 at 06:33 PM
This is what happens when people who don't know jack about medicine decide they want to pretend they're doing something moral.
BTW - I'm pretty sure there have been a few trials of viagra for pulmonary hypertension.
Posted by: Ol Cranky | June 01, 2005 at 06:41 PM
Yup, there have already been at least a few Viagra trials for pulmonary hypertension. The altitude sickness study was one of them. I'm sure more results will be appearing in a newspaper near us very soon.
It will be interesting to see what other off label uses they can find. Any predictions?
Posted by: Lindsay Beyerstein | June 01, 2005 at 07:06 PM
I can think of one-as a side-effect moderating drug for vast numbers of psychotropic medications, specifically antipsychotics and antidepressants. There are a number of drugs primarily prescribed to treat other side effects of these drugs already, and treatment of side effects is generally recognized as a good motivator to have people actually stay on them.
Posted by: JP | June 01, 2005 at 07:14 PM
Congress has already gone after federally-funded research into sexual dysfunction in years past. I suppose this is just the next step.
Posted by: Lis Riba | June 02, 2005 at 07:19 AM
What about the female viagra? Will that be covered? Actually, there already was a female viagra, but they took it off the market. It was called a qualude.
Posted by: mudkitty | June 02, 2005 at 10:37 AM
Will there be an amendment to rename the bill after a famous congressioanl user of such medicines (undoubtedly he received these free for advertising and so the always "morally correct" congressional health care plan didn't ahve to pay for the needed drug):
the Buy Only Biblically Designated Orgasmic Love Enhancement act?
Michael
Posted by: Michael | June 02, 2005 at 03:08 PM
Why do these people hate sex?!?!
Maybe a girl/boy laughed at them when they lost their virginity.
And how are old men supposed to whip up more batches of frothy Santorum if they can't get thier Viagra?
Posted by: DownLeft | June 02, 2005 at 08:52 PM
They're the ones who didn't get laid in High School.
Posted by: mudkitty | June 04, 2005 at 10:38 AM
http://campedi.com/wwwboard/messages/19593.htm jerkslotwatched
Posted by: truly | September 07, 2005 at 02:26 AM
http://www.nestofdeath.com/wwwboard/messages/41039.html flickedhuskilysnakes
Posted by: attention | September 26, 2005 at 12:15 AM
Earth to spambots: the "Great Stuff! Thanks!" line really convinces someone that it's not spam.
Loved this typo (on the last word in this sentence):
Kos reports that Santorum, Lott, Ensign and Grassley are cosponsoring S. 1113, a bill to ban all Federal funding for "sexual or erectile dysfuction":
I'm not capping, I just loved it.
Posted by: 1984 Was Not a Shopping List | February 01, 2006 at 02:16 PM