Viagra Safe From Budget Knife in VA

[Col Hogan]

Virginia lawmakers are trying to figure out how to close a massive budget hole...but one recommended cut won't happen...the state will allow state workers to continue to get the little blue pill...

Gov. Tim Kaine (D) had recommended cutting funding for Viagra and similar drugs, as well as non-sedating antihistamines. According to budget documents prepared by his administration, eliminating coverage of the drugs while implementing a "90-day maintenance drug network" would have saved the state $6.8 million over the two-year budget.

The General Assembly agreed to restore funding for the drugs, as you can see in Item 469 #C included as part of the conference report adopted Sunday.

But are lawmakers squeamish? When Kaine recommended the cut, he spelled out the words "erectile dysfunction." But in the assembly's budget, the pills are referred to more obliquely as "ED drugs."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virgin ... rc=nl_buzz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ASUG8]

I'm sure he faced stiff competition in attempting to block this - fortunately for many, opposition rose up and his attempt fell flat.

[BDKJMU]

Thats BS. Gov't has no business paying for anything that ain't medically necessary. Be it abortions, birth control, sex changes, fake titties, Viagra. Heck, at least with birth control you're preventing unwanted pregnancies. With Viagra you're enabling it. If you can't get it up, that's a personal problem, not a medical one. To believe tax dollars go to that....

[dbackjon]

Thats BS. Gov't has no business paying for anything that ain't medically necessary. Be it abortions, birth control, sex changes, fake titties, Viagra. Heck, at least with birth control you're preventing unwanted pregnancies. With Viagra you're enabling it. If you can't get it up, that's a personal problem, not a medical one. To believe tax dollars go to that....

It is actually a medical problem in many cases, but I would agree that is one that the government should not pay for. Many private insurances will not pay for it, so why should a government insurance?

[Skjellyfetti]

And they cut $250,000,000 from education.

[BDKJMU]

And they cut $250,000,000 from education.

Education funding in VA for FY 2010 even after the cuts is still 51.9% higher than in FY 00'. That far outpaces the increase in enrollment (7.2%) and inflation combined. And they (Democrat Senate, Republican House and Gov) passed a budget without any new tax increases. As I posted in that TX thread, the Pew study had VA as one of the 3 best managed states.

[Pwns]

Dear Kongress...

Cut coverage 4 *-™Viagra™-* and we'll fight against U in ur reelection

Signed,
Pfizer

[93henfan]

And they cut $250,000,000 from education.

At least it wasn't the $475 million that NJ Gov Chris Christie cut from public education last month and the additional $1 billion he proposed yesterday.

[BDKJMU]

And they cut $250,000,000 from education.

At least it wasn't the $475 million that NJ Gov Chris Christie cut from public education last month and the additional $1 billion he proposed yesterday.

NJ is one of the highest states in per pupil spending. I bet you even after those cuts that if you go back 10 years education funding in NJ will still be up far more than inflation + population growth.

[JayJ79]

Thats BS. Gov't has no business paying for anything that ain't medically necessary. Be it abortions, birth control, sex changes, fake titties, Viagra. Heck, at least with birth control you're preventing unwanted pregnancies. With Viagra you're enabling it. If you can't get it up, that's a personal problem, not a medical one. To believe tax dollars go to that....

It is actually a medical problem in many cases, but I would agree that is one that the government should not pay for. Many private insurances will not pay for it, so why should a government insurance?

If a program covers Viagra, they better cover birth control. (don't know whether or not this particular program does, I'm just talking generalities).

Pregnancy is a much bigger medical problem than ED.

[BDKJMU]

It is actually a medical problem in many cases, but I would agree that is one that the government should not pay for. Many private insurances will not pay for it, so why should a government insurance?

If a program covers Viagra, they better cover birth control. (don't know whether or not this particular program does, I'm just talking generalities).

Pregnancy is a much bigger medical problem than ED.

Why? With no birth control, you could have unwanted pregnancies. Big consequence there. With no Viagra, old farts can't get hard ons. Not nearly as big a consequence there.

[JayJ79]

If a program covers Viagra, they better cover birth control. (don't know whether or not this particular program does, I'm just talking generalities).

Pregnancy is a much bigger medical problem than ED.

Why? With no birth control, you could have unwanted pregnancies. Big consequence there. With no Viagra, old farts can't get hard ons. Not nearly as big a consequence there.

Hence why I said that programs should cover birth control.

[BDKJMU]

Why? With no birth control, you could have unwanted pregnancies. Big consequence there. With no Viagra, old farts can't get hard ons. Not nearly as big a consequence there.

Hence why I said that programs should cover birth control.

My bad- I misread what you wrote. Sorry.