Your Rock Hard Tax Dollars at Work
From Minnesota Daily's editorial:
Medicare's new prescription drug program will now cover sexual performance drugs such as Viagra and Levitra. The new law makes it so any drug that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is medically necessary will be included in Medicare's coverage.
More than 15 million men have tried Viagra, and the prescription isn't always medically necessary. Because of this, common prescriptions to treat male erectile dysfunction such as Viagra and other sexual performance drugs will be prescribed under tighter control this year.
Whole thing here.
Alas, the prescription drug benefit--in most, and probably all, ways, nothing more than a sop to the pharmaceutical industry--may not help ailing ED drugs, whose sales are softer than, well, a lazy fly ball popped up by Rafael Palmeiro.
Last year's world sales for the medications were about $2.7 billion, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey estimates--at least $1 billion lower than drug industry analysts forecast two years ago.
Pfizer's Viagra pioneered the market in 1998. At the time, one Wall Street firm reportedly expected that drug alone to post sales of $4.5 billion by now. Instead, its 2004 sales were $1.7 billion, down 11% from 2003.
Whole thing here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Looks like boners are no longer a growth industry.
Ok, I dare anyone to post 2 consecutive serious comments on this topic.
Everyone's always harping about the "children", but what about the pasty, middle-aged, comb-over white guys with flaccid little jimmies? WHO SPEAKS FOR THEM!?
The headline reminds me Rock Hard Ten is running in the Strub tomorrow. If I hit the pick6, I'll be contributing more than my fair share to the Federal Pricks. Who else is in favor of eliminating income taxes on gambling winnings?
The message the market sends to the marketers of ED drugs if very clear:
It's harder than you thought.
regards,
Shirley Knott
Not that it means anything, but my pharmacist tells me that ED drugs are the ONLY meds he never hears any complaints about regarding price.
Does it cover the various forms of birth control?
Twba--Hilarious!
Perhaps if they stopped requiring a prescription for ED drugs and allowed them to be used recreationally sales would climb.
Kind of funny how boners are so value-neutral. There's nothing morally problematic about them. Not even a question of whether the taxpayers should fund them.
But start talking about birth control, abortion, look out.
Remember how we were all so traumatized by half a second of Janet's boob? But stiffy-pill ads which seem to constitute half of the advertising for the NFL are no problemo.
But will that discussion give you the...quality experience you're looking for?
Kind of funny how boners are so value-neutral.
Unless enhancements to the human body can be convincingly packaged as treatments for a dysfunction, they are doubleplusungood.
Take steroids for example. Enhancing scores, physique and making guys ravenously horny? Bad. Treating "andropause"? Sold!
I hope one day when I'm over the hill, I'll be able to attend an all night warehouse Post Traumatic Stress Disorder treatment session, complete with glowsticks and kinetic audio therapy.
I think I can find a suitable resolution to my problem with the government funding ED drugs. I will accept it on the condition that there is a national registry, whereby women (and gay men) can locate men who are utilizing this medically pertinent social net. That way, more citizens can benefit from the program. And keeping a registry website would be cost effective!
Smacky,
Are you saying that a hard man is good to find?
Gary, if you can find some elderly women who need birth control I have no doubt that the drunken sailors in Congress will be willing to spend money on it.
Didn't Ronnie Raygun once say that comparing Congress to drunken sailors was an insult to drunken sailors?
Smacky,
Are you saying that a hard man is good to find?
Yes, Twba, I think that is exactly what I was getting at. All this talk of boners detracts from my point. It really makes me beat around the bush. So to speak. I'm flustered.
I'm insulted.
This just occurred to me.. is sex without the intent to reproduce (especially by seniors) considered recreational? Ergo, is the Federal government promoting a recreational drug?
Hey 'Reason,' way to do your research properly!
If you actually read the USA Today article (but why would you? They're a part of the 'Elite Liberal Media') they say this about the drugs for American Man:
"Desipite disappointments, the market is growing. U.S. sales rose 10% last year...."
So basically sales are skyrocketing. The only thing that's shrinking is Reason's ability to see through idiot plays in the expectations game.
So can I deduct my wine and Barry White CDs as a medical expense?
David the problem is this line, "Instead, its 2004 sales were $1.7 billion, down 11% from 2003."
US sales are fine and dandy. But it doesn't mean dick if your overall sales are down.
So can I deduct my wine and Barry White CDs as a medical expense?
I call that a deductible fertility treatment.
So can I deduct my wine and Barry White CDs as a medical expense?
Oh, come on. Does Barry White actually work for anyone? Anyone who's Caucasian, at least?
US sales are fine and dandy. But it doesn't mean dick if your overall sales are down.
Ha, ha...you said "dick".
Actually, it still does mean dick to some people, even if overall sales are down.
Technically.
Oh, come on. Does Barry White actually work for anyone? Anyone who's Caucasian, at least?
Barry doesn't quite work as well as Marvin Gaye, but to save on expenses I went with the generic. 🙂 What do you prefer Brian Adams or Clapton? You gotta have soul.
Ha, ha...you said "dick".
I assure you that was quite coincidental.
I'm still baffled that boner medicine is allowed on primetime, but a split-second nipple shot is cause for outrage and mass censorship.
Does the FCC allow big fat man tits on TV? I've often wondered how these silly decisions are made.
You know, if "indecent" means "gross" then fat man-tits should be banned from TV (as should the boobs on really fat women, for that matter), but female breasts that aren't too wrinkled or too large should be fine for TV.
Sadly, I believe that "indecent" means "pleasurable", which summarizes in a nutshell all of the problems with laws that govern "morality."
BTW which industries will be hurt by pot legalization?
Addiction or Self Medication?