Sex, Drugs, And Congress

Lloyd Garver Up In Arms Over Whether Gov't Should Pay For Viagra

(CBS)  It didn't seem frivolous for Bob Dole to do his famous commercial a few years ago for Viagra. He was hailed as brave for going public with this problem. So, why is the issue now considered by many to be an outrageous subsidizing of people's "recreational" activities?

There are a couple of reasons. This administration has been consistently prudish. How silly does it seem now that the chairman of the FCC got personally involved when Janet Jackson's breast was exposed for a microsecond on TV? Remember when former Attorney General Ashcroft insisted that a statue be draped to cover its breasts? So it's not surprising that today's politicians would be offended by the idea of helping people have a sex life.

But I think a bigger reason is the image that these medicines have. When Hugh Hefner brags about his using Viagra, that doesn't make us want to pay for his dalliances at the Mansion. And we have been inundated by ads for these drugs. There are even billboards at baseball stadiums advertising them. It seems a little ironic that baseball claims to be so opposed to some performance enhancing drugs but not to others.

So it's precisely because of the way the drug companies have chosen to market these drugs that seems to justify the position of those who don't want the government to pay for them. Erectile dysfunction is not presented as a serious medical problem by the media. We see couples shopping or in outdoor bathtubs, and sexy women breathlessly tell us how happy they are that their partners use the medicine. That famous "four-hour erection" line in the ads may be a legitimate health warning, but I'll bet it makes a lot of people look into getting the drug and asking their doctor, "If I take half a pill will it last only two hours?"