Are you a little tired of some of the stuff you’ve seen on Twitter? Stuff that’s probably not true? I’m all for the democratization of media and everything, but damn.
I’ve decided to do a series on “Twitter Wisdom.” These will be things that I consider “received knowledge” on Twitter that I’m not so sure are true.
Today’s topic:
Let me be clear on this first one, I agree with the IDEA that BC should be free free. However, I’m not sure that this info is accurate.
Is Viagra really covered by insurance without question?
Turns out, No, it’s not. the tl;dr version: Some insurance covers it, some doesn’t. Much like BC (and any number of other things). One interviewed pharmacist also added that the out of pocket costs for Viagra (and generics) is much higher than BC, and that there are many ways to get cheap or free BC thanks to organizations like Planned Parenthood. ED drugs are not generally available outside of paying through insurance or out of pocket.
This is from an article on Insider.com, a source that’s generally rated well for presenting fact and is rated as center or left-of-center depending where you look, and in both cases I found, is rated as being factual. (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/insider/) (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/business-insider)
I guess we could also go Twitter v. Twitter here. And I’ll let you decide whether you believe a celebrity chef or someone who works with these prescriptions directly:
While we’re on the topic of boners…this thread did also bring up another interesting piece of info:
This article, from mlitarytimes.com, says that the military spends 10x as much money on viagra drugs as it does transgender troops.
It is true, a larger sum is spent on Viagra for retirees than is spent on transgender troops.
But there are a lot of facts that make this seem less silly than it is.
For one, there are 1.3 million activity duty troops, nearly 2 million if we count reservists. There are reportedly 7,000 transgender troops, according to the same militarytimes.com article.
The stats are going to be funky, but in my favor. It’s safe to assume that if there are 2 million active duty troops, there are FAR more “retirees” aka veterans. But we’re going to use the ratio of active troops and active transgender troops, which assumes that the ratio of transgender troops is similar amongst retirees as well. So the dollar amounts won’t be correct, but the ratio should be similar.
If there are 7,000 out of 1.3 million, if we can use that number and assume that ratio is applicable to veterans as well, that means about half a percent of troops identify as transgender.
Now, I think this argument was made by the site in response to the assertion by some that healthcare for transgender troops was “too expensive.” And I think that’s probably a ridiculous claim. However, I’m not as sure that this comparison is the right one to demonstrate this fact.
If transgender troops represent half a percent of total troops, they should theoretically cost about half a percent of the total budget. If 16% of active duty military are female, that means about 84% are male. Which means that medical needs for male vets would be about 84% of costs overall. The likelihood that many of these vets would experience erectile dysfunction is high. So, when you do the math, it seems to make mathematical sense. Especially when one considers, as stated above, that the costs of these drugs is high compared to the costs of many others.
This is a good example of stats being manipulated to make a case. And the issue I take with that is that I don’t think you have to disingenuously manipulate numbers to make the case that it won’t cost the military very much to provide healthcare for transgender people, even if that means hormones or other things that aren’t provided to 99.5% of active duty troops. It seems like a pretty easy cost to absorb, and frankly, for what people give in the military, I think we get our “money’s worth” out of them.
I know some people feel like it’s a tactic, that the idea is to affect change by whatever means necessary, even lying. I don’t agree with that. I think meeting lies (transgender troop healthcare costs) with lies (manipulation of facts about viagra) only leads to widespread distrust.
Consider: Does your qualitative point lose credibility if the quantitative data used to back it up is incorrect? I say yes. For me, it does. If you’re presenting false information in order to force a decision, I have to question the direction you’re sending me, even if it’s one I was predisposed to go in anyway.
I still have my own ideas, and they’re pretty simple: birth control should be free. In all forms. The pill, the shot, condoms, tubals, vasectomies. Any medically sound prescription or device should be free. If someone is self-aware enough to desire to not have babies, I would like to empower them to not have babies. I see this as pure win-win.
I also think medications should be free.
Let’s talk about the human side.
According to a study by the VA:
In one study, of male combat Veterans diagnosed with PTSD, for example, 85 percent reported erectile dysfunction, compared with a 22 percent rate among male combat Veterans without any mental health diagnosis. Another study of 90 male combat Veterans with PTSD found more than 80 percent were experiencing sexual dysfunction.
I think it’s fair to say that it’s important that we care for veterans with PTSD. I think it’s also fair to say that sexuality is a component of a healthy lifestyle, especially for recently-discharged vets. The average age of an active duty military personnel is 27, meaning that a recently-discharged vet is probably around age 30, at most. For men in their 30’s, it’s reasonable to expect a sex life, and it’s a component of an overall healthy lifestyle.
One way these numbers get confused is a little known fact: veterans do not get free healthcare for life. They CAN get free healthcare for 5 years after discharge, and they can also get free healthcare if they develop something that’s tied to their service. So, for example, if there is enough evidence that demonstrates PTSD causes erectile dysfunction, they may be able to receive viagra through the VA beyond 5 years.
I think when we picture a viagra user, we picture an old man lothario in a convertible, banging his way through young waitresses. But I challenge that notion and want to ask: Isn’t that the equivalent of judging a birth control user as young woman who just wants to sleep around? Aren’t we making assumptions and decisions of what healthy sexuality looks like, and aren’t we applying those to an entire gender based on our imagining of behavior that’s perhaps not representative?
What about a man who uses viagra in a marriage, something that was discussed and explored with his partner? Do we feel differently about that? What about a gay man who uses viagra to keep up with a much younger partner? How do we feel about that? A widower in an age-appropriate relationship? A man in his 30’s using viagra to combat the side effects of other required medications?
These drugs are used frivolously, and they’re used to improve people’s lives.
The facts here show that viagra is not easier to get or cheaper than birth control. This argument is unfounded.
It’s also reinforces the idea that viagra is a boner pill that nobody really needs. The fantasy that it’s all about a wealthy older man artificially extending a sex life that has nothing to do with love or affection or partnership.
So think twice before posting this one, will you?