Remembering that I’m a simpleton, explain why erectile disfunction pills should be subsidized at all. It’s sure a gravy train for the drug companies, as they’re expensive and, based on commercials, widely used. I think the only subsidized help for erectile disfunction should be the vacuum devices. Regarding the pills, if they weren’t subsidized the price would probably come way down. Another thing: selling the pills is a little like selling sex, and sex is never cheap for those who need to pay for it.
I completely agree with you on the basic point that Viagra (or any of its functional equivalents) should not be subsidized at all. Think of it - what better incentive would some poor schmuck of a guy have to go out there, work hard, and get rich, other than because he had to in order to get a "woodie"?
Nonetheless, even if we're going to be stupid enough to subsidize them at all, we most certainly should not be providing them to people who use their "wood" to commit atrocities on young children. The democrats should not have voted against the republican amendment to deny Viagra (and its equivalents) to convicted sex-offenders - that simply demonstrates how depraved they are and how indifferent they are to the amount of harm they cause, just so long as they can realize their own fascist power-grab fantasies.
