jd Ⓐ★😼🚀🌍🇪🇺🇭🇺The #USA military spends five times as much on Viagra as it would on transgender troops’ medical care
ԜаӀtеr Ⅼарсһуnѕkі@jd i agree banning transgender people from the military or really from anywhere else is rather deplorable (though, fuck the military) but the real issue here is why the hell are taxpayers paying for viagra?!
@wxl Well it is prescribed because some men cannot get it up, basically. This can be an illness – altho I think we can imagine this fact being abused in the US Military. I think there might be a medical reason for women, as well – I do not recall what tho.
@jd i guess my issue with it is how much we're spending on it. i understand that medical spending for the military involves non-active and/or retired members and that this condition increases with age. i understand the emotional value of a healthy sex life. the amount we're spending is staggering, though, even despite that.
Charles 𝄢 Hutchins@wxl @jd Buying drugs for a LOT of people with doing price negotiations will always look extremely expensive. When the US finally gets universal healthcare, any particular treatment will add up to a staggering amount, with our without negotiations due to the large numbers of people. (And it will still end up costing less than the current terrible for-profit patchwork.)
Health care for veterans is still most cost-effective than the private system.
Health care for veterans is still most cost-effective than the private system.
@wxl @jd This kind of nit-picking over what actual, real health conditions are normative/worthy enough to merit coverage is exactly the same logic as is used to exclude trans people.
Seriously, there is nothing wrong with covering people's sexual health. It's a social good. Everyone in the US should e able to access what they need in regards to this.
Seriously, there is nothing wrong with covering people's sexual health. It's a social good. Everyone in the US should e able to access what they need in regards to this.
@wxl @jd Obviously liberation and the end of privilege is a worthy goal. But I wonder if essentially laughing at people who have a health condition that presumably causes shame and unhappiness is the best way forward on this?
There are a lot of places where it's a good critique to point out erectile dysfunction coverage, for example, if other reproductive/genital health is not covered, but viagra is - that's a major indicator of privilege. Like if birth control isn't covered, but ED is. The comparison to trans coverage is less apt, but still ok.
But the point, hopefully, isn't to take away coverage from penis-havers, but to point out that other reproductive/genital health is also valid and worthy of consideration. It's a race to the top, not the bottom!
There are a lot of places where it's a good critique to point out erectile dysfunction coverage, for example, if other reproductive/genital health is not covered, but viagra is - that's a major indicator of privilege. Like if birth control isn't covered, but ED is. The comparison to trans coverage is less apt, but still ok.
But the point, hopefully, isn't to take away coverage from penis-havers, but to point out that other reproductive/genital health is also valid and worthy of consideration. It's a race to the top, not the bottom!