But again, there is little connection between insurance coverage for viagra over birth control to how folks would react if viagra was withheld. Simply an invalid point. In fact you question it yourself at the end of your post. I doubt many people would be in an uproar and oh by the way, I like girls on the pill.
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally posted by kateshort
You questioned whether it had happened that someone had withheld Viagra. I pointed out that the Original Poster was posting a "what if." I stated that she probably made the comparison/prediction/"what if" of there being a different and stronger reaction to that "what if" of Viagra meds being withheld based upon the inequality of how men's and women's Viagra and BC pill prescriptions are already covered.
It seems that people have no problem getting men easy access and full prescription coverage for Viagra, a drug that helps men have sex (whether or not they're in a marriage or committed relationship), but that when it comes to women's BC pills (whether or not they're in a marriage or committed relationship), those prescriptions are not fully covered, and are now being withheld.
[On a total side note, it makes me wonder whether the pharmacists who are so worried about withholding BC pills from women on the grounds that it interferes with God's will are equally concerned about giving Viagra to men who may or may not be married and may or may not be committing adultery while on the meds. 'Cause, y'know, adultery is one of the ten commandments... I wonder whether the pharmacists who are being supported for not filling women's prescriptions *would* be equally supported if they stopped filling prescriptions for Viagra and other men's ED meds.... which I believe is the point that the original poster was trying to make.]
|