Why are taxpayers paying for Viagra? Where is the Catholic hierarchy's outrage about this?

[TheKentuckian]

50. I'm 100% fine with covering anything

FDA approved, with an approved diagnosis or application that is reasonably supported.
In fact, I'm more than fine with it, I think that should be the law and the absolute minimum level of coverage available.

I understand where you are coming from, I just think the line of reasoning is a bit on the toxic side and the possibility of a lot of people's care, even in totally unrelated areas, being lost in an eye for an eye level ramifications but in the context of a spitball fight.

I thing it is wrong to validate the Reich Wing thought process on medical care by jumping in with both feet in the tit for tat, which it isn't because for women, control over their bodies is on the line too. Old men not being covered on boner pills isn't going to help the young women with essentially the option to lose control of their sexuality or their bodies, if not both in the end.

I think this argument sells the point very short and doesn't take medical care very seriously by sharing the logic that got us here.