Is Erection a Health Care Right?

Andrew Malcolm wrote this in the LA Times‘ “The Top of the Ticket”  on August 13, 2010:

The Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association has gone to court asking a judge to order the financially strapped school board to reinstate coverage for Viagra, Levitra, Cialis and other erectile dysfunction drugs in union members’ healthcare plans. The union claims that excluding such coverage discriminates against the male gender.

In clearly less important news, facing growing benefit costs and shrinking revenues, the board in June had to lay off about 400 classroom teachers, the first such cuts there in decades.

At this time of stubborn national unemployment for millions, some silly people might question the wisdom of a labor union representing people with actual jobs launching legal action over a $20 pill to improve the functioning of a member of a member.

The school board claims the famous little starter pills are recreational, not medically necessary, and would cost the city $787,000 a year. Offhand, that seems like a lot of educators’ erections, but it’s also enough money to employ 12 full-time teachers of either gender.

A state labor commission recently ruled against the teachers’ sexual discrimination complaint, stating in part that the union had failed to identify by name the specific discriminated members who need the erectile dysfunction drug.

Stand by for that.

What’s your position on this issue?

One Reply to “Is Erection a Health Care Right?”

  1. as a survivor of prostate cancer ( surgical removal of the prostate ), I can assure you the pills are anything but recreational for me and my wife. they are necessary to continue a healthy marriage !

Comments are closed.