McCain's Viagra Moment

factcheck.org

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

Incidentally, McCain voted against the Murray amendment. In 2005 he voted against a similar amendment, this one proposed by Hillary Clinton. Whether or not he lacks an informed view, as he said, he has in the past opposed legislation to enact a federal mandate for contraceptive coverage.

To be sure, McCain can thank his own campaign for inspiring the ill-informed question that left him so exposed. On July 7, McCain campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina said at a press event: "There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won't cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice."

Republished with permission from factcheck.org .

Sources
Sonfield, Adam and Rachel Benson Gold. "New Study Documents Major Strides in Drive For Contraceptive Coverage." The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, June 2004.

Interview with Adam Sonfield, Senior Public Policy Associate at the Guttmacher Institute, 19 July 2008.

Lewin, Tamar. "Court Says Health Coverage May Bar Birth Control Pills." New York Times, 17 Mar. 2007.

Grunwald, Michael. "U.S. Judge Asserts Need for More Viagra Coverage." Washington Post, 27 Mar. 1999.

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "Decision on Coverage of Contraception," 14 Dec. 2000.

Keith, Alison. "The Economics of Viagra." Health Affairs, Mar./Apr. 2000.

Rubenstein, Sarah. "Big Employers Cover Contraceptives But Not Weight-Loss Meds." Wall Street Journal Health Blog, 24 Mar. 2008.

Kurth, Ann et al. "Reproductive and Sexual Health Benefits in Private Health Insurance Plans in Washington State." Family Planning Perspectives, July/Aug. 2001.

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Political Pluralism @ 09/30/2009 6:10:57 PM

Amidst the fiery debate over the new strategy to take place in Afghanistan, Sen. John McCain has proposed a new amendment attached to the defense spending bill. The Requirements that Senator McCain are seeking out is for Gen. McChrystal, and Head of Central Command Gen. Petraeus to testify in front of Congress. This didn't take place without any backlash, Carl Levin; who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee with McCain. Levin feels that there isn't any need at this time for Gen. McChrystal to provide testimony, because President Obama hasn't established a direct plan for Afghanistan at the moment. Despite the damning statements Gen. McChrystal made regarding to President Obama, that he had only spoke to the president once since becoming the lead Afghanistan General. Mr. Obama is set to reestablish a strategy with top officials including Gen. McChrystal. My questions to you all consists of this. Do you think that the war in Afghanistan is capable of winning? If so, will it just be a police state with roughly 50,000 troops present at all times? (politicalpluralism.com)
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: skisworld @ 01/07/2009 9:57:02 AM

As a prostate cancer survivor, (seed implants), I was also perscribed Viagra for treatment in 2003. At that time the perscription plan provided a huge discount for erectile dysfunction agents. In 2007 the plan was changed as a cost cutting measure by AT&T that removed the huge discount to management employees for erectile dysfunction agents and fertility agents. Non-management (bargined for) employees continue to receive the huge discounts but management must pay up to 4 times the cost for the same perscription. Discrimination? Bargined? The CEO of AT&T, in early December, addressed his Fortune 500 counterparts to propose the new presidential administration follow the lead of AT&T in their health care cost cutting. Studies concluded before those comments prove that the shift of costs to the employee by increasing deductibles and other costs just delay the more expensive treatment of illness to later years. Employees, tryinjg to save money, delay treatment of minor problems until they become major issues in later years and the overall cost of treatment escalates costing both employee and company more. Where is the savings????
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: djhouston @ 10/08/2008 1:05:38 PM

I have just now read of this story about McCain and Viagra, and it came as a shock and surprise to me.

My insurance company has no limit on coverage of contraceptives, but only allows 8 Viagra tablets of 100mg per month. Imagine an insurance company telling you (and your doctor) that you could only have sex twice a week (some kind of national average?). Actually, my doctor prescribed Viagra for me in low doses before and after radical surgery for prostate cancer, with the thought that it would help with recovery of the nerves down there that were injured in the surgery.

So, Viagra is not only a "recreational" drug, but, for me and many other prostate cancer surgery patients, rehabilitative therapy. I complained of discrimination (Viagra vs. contraceptives) to the insurance company and my company's human resource dept., but they said they were just following "industry standards" for amount covered. I also let this drug company's representative that I wanted to complain about Viagra's TV campaign, Viva Viagra, because I think this contributed to the drug's recreational image which may have made it look bad to the insurance companies (they cover daily doses of lots more expensive drugs when they think that people are really sick), But I see why Pfizer did it. If insurance companies were going to discriminate against men regarding this drug, then they would hope to get guys to pay out of pocket to get it. And I understand why businesses'HR departments would pay for contraceptives and not Viagra: birth control pills are cheaper than having to both pay and replace a productive employee out on maternity leave, and who cares what men do or can't do after business hours.