A couple of things. On the face of it they are both primarily used to engage in sex no question but with out Viagra most users would be unable to have sex because of a medical condition whereas with out the pill the user will still be able to have sex just with the risk of pregnancy. This might seem like hair splitting on the face of it but to an insurance company it is these small differences that could raise the cost of health care even higher with out carefully worded policies and laws to exempt the pill from covered medications not needed for medical conditions.

Here is an example of a real world situation that can arise with out the hair splitting. There is a immunization by the brand name synargis that is used to prevent RSV in infants. RSV is a disease that virtually every child will catch before the age of 5 and for most it is harmless. The cost of this drug is around 1500 to 2500 per dose with schedule for most of the country (except florida which is year round) of 4 to 8 doses for either 1 or 2 years. Every insurance company I have dealt with or heard about there coverage of the drug will cover it only for high risk infants which covers pre mature births, twins or more, exceptionally low birth weight, infants that where in PICU and those with lung and/or heart problems. If the pill is covered with out exceptions this will open up cases where parents with healthy children can sue for a drug like Synargis to prevent a possible outcome as seen by the above cost for a healthy child the cost on the low end could be 7500 to upwards of 30k just to save the child from a glorified 2 day cold.

I would image the reason he brought it up is because the press likes to act like the two drugs are equal but medically they are not and s/he is trying to clarify this point. Yes drug companies can and do bow to pressure but no amount of pressure will make them make a decision that could lead to millions and billions of additional costs if not protected see my previous post for an example. This is why I am bringing it up for those that actually bother to call the insurance companies or there local politicians on the matter can make a stronger case instead of making an ignorant statement like hey congressperson joe blow why do the insurance companies pay for viagra and not the pill and being laughed at.

What are you talking about with your second paragraph? First, lots of shit comes on due to age that we treat from arthritis and heart disease to cancer and loss of hearing and eyesight. We treat for all of those or would you suggest we stop doing that also or is it because it deals with the reproductive system different rules apply? Second, the two drugs are not equivalent, viagra is not the male version of birth control pills which is the whole point of mine and the other cats posts. One treats a medical condition while one prevents pregnancy which is not a medical condition (well i guess it depends on the argument feminist want to make at the time). So no one can not say either or for the two drugs well unless you want to say if a drug was developed that allowed breast tissue to redevelop after a mastectomy that should be not be covered if viagra is not covered. Or arthritis medication should not be covered if viagra is not covered. As my hypothetical and arthritis medication are equivalent to viagra.

The rest of you post is why insurance companies don't cover the pill. Because once you let open treatments that cover possible aliments you have to cover a shit load of nonsense that you brought up. But than i have my doubts you have actually read my posts other than to get outraged that someone does not by the false fairness argument trying to be made.