Post User Polls

Should Virginia provide coverage for erectile dysfunction?

State employees, have no fear -- thanks to the General Assembly, your health coverage will continue to cover drugs to treat erectile dysfunction.

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. Read the full article.

By Jodi Westrick  |  March 16, 2010; 3:14 PM ET  | Category:  Local Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Too soon for Tiger Woods's return? | Next: Do you think Virginia should invest in offshore drilling?


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Why wouldn't it be covered? It's a health problem, just like any other. We cover the full gambit of women's reproductive health, from STDs and birth control to pregnancy and beyond.

If we're going to cover women's health issues, why not men's? I'm sure their spouses will wholeheartedly agree.

Posted by: postfan1 | March 17, 2010 3:07 AM

Now that's a hard one.

Posted by: eaglehawkaroundsince1937 | March 17, 2010 4:45 AM

Virginia seems to have more than its share of d1@ks so of course it should cover erectile dysfunction.

Posted by: meand2 | March 17, 2010 5:12 AM

The headline on the front page reads:
"Should Va. cover erectile problems?"

And I think it only makes sense. We do not want erectile problems out in the open. I say cover it. And keep it covered.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | March 17, 2010 5:59 AM

No! Especially not for anyone other than faithfully married men with wives of childbearing age.

Posted by: thebump | March 17, 2010 6:36 AM

I'd say that begs an "up or down vote".

Posted by: RealTexan1 | March 17, 2010 7:06 AM

Most ED problems are based upon psychological issues. If they want it, perhaps a psych review should be required. There is a precedent for this...e.g. gastric bypass candidates.

Otherwise, I don't care if they cover it as long as the man doesn't have a record of rape or pedophilia or other physical abusive.

Posted by: Sofie230 | March 17, 2010 7:09 AM

What a boner move.

Posted by: BO__Stinks | March 17, 2010 7:28 AM

the expensive liberal elite pro-gay wing of the military provides coverage for erectile dysfunction and the poor traditional afghan family man is getting it up the arse from the million dollar mentally ill nicotene dependant tattooed dick trainers.

"do you have any weapons," asked the dadt homosexualand security officer during a kandahar traffic stop "in your viehilce?"

and the brilliant bonerless lavander mob authorities have decided to bring our boys home begining in august as promised.

vive le ping pong, ptsd purple hearties, and impotent virginia state troopers

Posted by: therapy | March 17, 2010 8:43 AM

Sure, but there's an evolutionary reason for ED (over the age of 45) at that age any child born stands a greater chance of developmental, mental and/or physical abnormalities with every year that passes. Is Virginia willing to pay for that play?

So a question should be; at what age should Virginia stop funding it?

Posted by: topwriter | March 17, 2010 9:25 AM

CAN WE TALK???? ED is not a priority in the bigger areas of critical health care. Let's treat cancer, cardiac disease, diabetes, childhood illnesses. VA may be for lovers, but, this is ridiculous.

Posted by: suzeq | March 17, 2010 4:16 PM

The drugs that treat ED treat a brain chemical disorder. ED is not psychological but physical. The drug acts on an enzyme called cGMP specific phosphodiesterase type 5. It affects men as they get older but is not limited to older men.

Of course, when these men get their partners pregnant, VA voters will complain about covering them.

Posted by: achamblee | March 18, 2010 11:28 AM

For all Virginia Males who want support for their erections it would be helpful if they took a "harder stance" on providing affordable access to birth control for the women left changing the diapers of the unintended consequences.

Posted by: fabricmaven1 | March 18, 2010 11:23 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company