N.Y. taxpayers' welfare Viagra bill rises to $6M.

March 18, 2002 8:15 AM

N.Y. taxpayers' welfare Viagra bill rises to $6M. Conservative Party chairman Michael Long called the expense "an unconscionable waste of taxpayer money."

I would tend to agree. It doesn't seem right. The money could have gone to those who really need it, instead of a bunch of old folks who just want to get laid.
posted by susanlucci (23 comments total)

the most important nugget from the article:

the fact a bill to expand women's health-care coverage is bogged down in the state Legislature over disagreements on birth-control coverage "continues a double standard that men's health is valued more than women's."
posted by machaus at 8:21 AM on March 18, 2002

Oh wow. Viagra for medicaid people. So they can't afford it. And if they can't afford viagra, they probably can't afford to... raise kids!

And if they are getting viagra through medicaid, theres a chance of a child being born, and if then they end up getting more money from the government because now they have a kid to provide for.
posted by Keen at 8:46 AM on March 18, 2002

First, Medicaid isn't a program for the elderly.

As a matter of fact, my former lover had viagra prescribed on his Medicaid. The drugs he was on to treat his qualifying disability prevented him from getting erections.

Yeah. And god forbid the poor should fuck. Why don't you spend the rest of your life ill, poor, and unable to have sex? Better yet, why don't we just sterilize or neuter the poor? Jesus Christ people, get a grip.

It's also nice to see people linking the New York Post, that vanguard of fine reportage.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 9:07 AM on March 18, 2002

RJ Reynolds - The question is not whether poor people should fuck. The question is whether the governement should be compelled to help them fuck.

But you knew that.
posted by NortonDC at 9:17 AM on March 18, 2002

Fair enough. More restraint of keyboard on my part.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 9:34 AM on March 18, 2002

However, given that a Viagra prescription is $75.00 for 3 pills, and as Medicaid eligibility hovers around $20,000 in income a year for a family of four (including resources such as the value of a car), it seems to me that the only way that "erectile dysfunctional" (God I hate that phrase) men could have sex is indeed if the government pays.

Is it really much of a stretch to deny reproductive choice -- for men, for once, at least! -- and make the analogy to the choice of Norplant sterilization vs welfare benefits and prison time for women on welfare that nearly came to pass in the 90s?
posted by RJ Reynolds at 9:52 AM on March 18, 2002

Jesus Christ people, get a grip.
exactly. no welfare viagra required.
posted by quonsar at 10:17 AM on March 18, 2002

I have no problem with my tax money being used in this way, as long as they provide a condom with each pill, and a booklet on how to use the condom.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:30 AM on March 18, 2002

Frivolous waste of money. It would be better used elsewhere, on other programs.

Six million dollars could have helped a lot more people in better ways then sex.

Things like this are what make me hate sending my taxes into the "big pool" to be handed out as beauracracy sees fit.

If someone asked me if I wanted to have my tax dollars go to help the poor men who can't get an erection, I would say absolutely not.
Maybe if the pilss weren't free they would feel compelled to get a job, make some money, so they could buy the pills and get some action in the sack.

To reiterate my first statement. There is no doubt that $6,000,000 could have been better used.
posted by a3matrix at 10:42 AM on March 18, 2002

There is no doubt that $6,000,000 could have been better used.

For example, they could have built the world's first bionic man.
posted by kindall at 11:21 AM on March 18, 2002

There is no doubt that $6,000,000 could have been better used.

For example, they could have built the world's first bionic man.
posted by kindall at 11:22 AM on March 18, 2002

Vote for me! I'm the one that got you stiff!! Support the erection platform!!! God bless you my son!!


That bionic man joke was TERRIBLE....oh my god..
posted by Settle at 11:29 AM on March 18, 2002

Judging by the world's population, the poor aren't having the least little problem fucking.
posted by jfuller at 11:30 AM on March 18, 2002

on the other hand, if fucking were reserved to the rich, we'd be a nation of subliminable shrubs inside one generation.
posted by quonsar at 11:55 AM on March 18, 2002

Good one Kindall !! Got me to laugh out loud. I needed that right now too.
Thanks
posted by a3matrix at 12:04 PM on March 18, 2002

??? http://www.metafilter.com/http%20://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw? That's not what I typed. Let's try that again - world's population.
posted by jfuller at 12:10 PM on March 18, 2002

nope; try again later...
posted by jfuller at 12:11 PM on March 18, 2002

Keen to the rescue!

Worlds Population
posted by Keen at 1:59 PM on March 18, 2002

Vote for me! I'm the one that got you stiff!!

"Don't forget to vote in tomorrow's erection!"
posted by kindall at 2:46 PM on March 18, 2002

For example, they could have built the world's first bionic man.

Okay, that was the funniest thing I've heard all day.

Of course, the Simpson will be on in 8 minutes...
posted by RJ Reynolds at 2:53 PM on March 18, 2002

er... oh, you know what I meant.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 2:55 PM on March 18, 2002

Last I checked, the ability to copulate was not a Constitutionally-guaranteed (or government-funded) right. The poor can fuck all they want, but not if someone else has to pay to ensure that they can. Get a grip, indeed.

Erectile Dysfunction is as much of a "disability" as nicotene addiction is a "disease". Do you get a good parking space if you have a limp dick?
posted by Danelope at 3:53 PM on March 18, 2002

"Maybe if the pilss weren't free they would feel compelled to get a job, make some money, so they could buy the pills and get some action in the sack."

Yes, the poor wouldn't be poor if they had more incentive to work. Let's not mention that the government to quite a large degree sets the unemployment levels, to balance the economy. And of course theres no such thing as the working poor, is there?

Yes there are a lot of poor people in the world, as Jfuller pointed out. And although the statistics don't mention as much, they are mostly poor. Since the overwhelming majority are from third world countries, it doesn't help in this discussion of something that is occurring in America. It helps to illustrate a joke, but no more.

I don't agree that the use of Viagra should be subsidised for any reasons other than impotence caused by disability. This is because for the most part the sales of Viagra seem to be driven by the drug companies themselves, and seem to often be over-prescribed (although you could say the same about a lot of drugs, certainly) I think it is over-prescribed to both the wealthy and the poor. If possible, I would like money to be put to better uses, although that is a value judgement.

NB: I don't think the NYPost is a very good source of information, even statistical information.
posted by lucien at 9:41 AM on March 19, 2002