State-Subsidized Viagra for Rapists

[BPSCG]

Am I wrong, or is it in fact called erectile function disease?

It's a disease in the same way that hereditary baldness is a disease. It is generally physically painless, even though it can cause emotional distress, generally, the only "symptom" is an inability to grow a shaft, it generally does not otherwise impair a person's ability to carry on everyday activities, and does not generally shorten one's lifepan. I'd be willing as a taxpayer to pay for it in the rare cases outside those "generally" constraints.

But if you're willing to pay for other men's Viagra, are you willing to pay for their hair transplants, too?

 

[Bjorn]

It's a disease in the same way that hereditary baldness is a disease.

One of them allows you to function perfectly well, the other takes away the ability to enjoy one of life's greatest pleasures ... ?

it generally does not otherwise impair a person's ability to carry on everyday activities

Not "otherwise", but it certainly takes away the ability to carry on everyday (or should I say everynight) activities.

But if you're willing to pay for other men's Viagra, are you willing to pay for their hair transplants, too?

As mentioned above, I don't find the comparison adequate. Being bald or not doesn't (I think) affect any bodily functions.

 

[Leif Roar]

Because if your heart stops functioning, you will die.
If your lungs stop functioning, you will die.
If your kidneys stop functioning, you will die.
If your liver stops functioning, you will die.
If your brain stops functioning, you will die.
If your Johnson stops functioning, you will die?

Let me answer with a counter question: If your ears stop functioning, will you die? I assume you won't claim that deafness, lameness or blindness aren't health problems?

 

[BPSCG]

One of them allows you to function perfectly well, the other takes away the ability to enjoy one of life's greatest pleasures ... ?

So now, I, as a taxpayer, must not only pay for someone else's needs, but also his pleasures?

 

[BPSCG]

Let me answer with a counter question: If your ears stop functioning, will you die? I assume you won't claim that deafness, lameness or blindness aren't health problems?

Fair point; it addresses an area where my objection didn't go - but doesn't make my objection fallacious.

Yes, they are health problems. But they are problems that throw major - dare I say crippling? - obstacles in his path in everything he does, twenty-four hours a day, 365.25 days a year.

How does the inability to get an erection a couple of times a week even remotely compare?

 

[Suddenly]

So now, I, as a taxpayer, must not only pay for someone else's needs, but also his pleasures?

Well... It is seriously contended that impotence can lead to larger, more serious problems like depression, not to mention the breakdown of a marriage relationship. It isn't quite as simple as mere pleasure....

http://adam.about.com/reports/000015_2.htm

Hypothetically speaking, would you rather flip someone a few viagra or deal with the aftermath of depression or a broken home? (WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!! )

Even from looking at it from a tax money angle it isn't a lead-pipe cinch that giving the hard-on pills costs more than not....

Of course, given the level of sexual repression that runs through our culture, getting people to actually seriously consider that is remote. Easier just to belittle the whole area of human experience as frivolous and those that might suffer the consequences of depression and/or relationship tension as weak...

 

[Suddenly]

Fair point; it addresses an area where my objection didn't go - but doesn't make my objection fallacious.

Yes, they are health problems. But they are problems that throw major - dare I say crippling? - obstacles in his path in everything he does, twenty-four hours a day, 365.25 days a year.

How does the inability to get an erection a couple of times a week even remotely compare?

Here's a link I found off a quick google search...

http://www.findfun.org/Facts.html

In 1990, economists speculated depression in the workplace cost the U.S. economy $43.7 billion, including $31.3 billion for indirect costs. By 1994, the estimated cost of untreated and mistreated mental illness and addictive disorders was $79 billion, according to a study by Dr. Dorothy P. Rice of the University of California, San Francisco, and Leonard S. Miller of the University of California. In August 2001, Dr. Rice confirmed her ongoing studies show the total yearly cost for mental illness and addictive disorders in both the private and public sector in the U.S. is $205 billion. Less than half of the amount ($92 billion) is for direct treatment costs while $113 billion is due to lost productivity and absenteeism ($105 billion) and crime and welfare costs ($8 billion). "Labor Day 2001 Report," National Mental Health Association, p.3

.....

Depression is implicated in physical disease, including heart disease, diabetes, bone loss, cancer, and stroke. Not only is depression suspected of causing or triggering some of these illnesses, a depressive episode severely worsens the outcome of all of them. World Health Organization

I guess it depends on whether one sees depression as a serious health problem or dismisses it as people having a case of the "grumpys" or something...

 

[BPSCG]

Here's a link I found off a quick google search...

http://www.findfun.org/Facts.html

What's your point? That mental disorders are expensive to treat and have other substanial costs to society not related to treatment? Okay, I'll accept that.

But I hope you're not saying that all mental disorders are due to sexual dysfunction. Or most of them. So I don't see what the point of this link is.

I guess it depends on whether one sees depression as a serious health problem or dismisses it as people having a case of the "grumpys" or something...

Sure it can be a serious health problem (I've seen it up close), many orders of magnitude worse than just a passing case of "the blues."

Are you suggesting that sexual dysfunction is a major cause of clinical depression? I'd suggest you don't go there, because if you do, you're probably reversing cause and effect - sexual dysfunction is often a symptom of clinical chronic depression, rather than the reverse.

 

[Suddenly]

What's your point? That mental disorders are expensive to treat and have other substanial costs to society not related to treatment? Okay, I'll accept that.

But I hope you're not saying that all mental disorders are due to sexual dysfunction. Or most of them. So I don't see what the point of this link is.

The point of the link is that sexual disfuntion can indeed lead to crippling disorders... The earlier post connected impotence with depression, and this links depression to the real world effects...

Sure it can be a serious health problem (I've seen it up close), many orders of magnitude worse than just a passing case of "the blues."

Are you suggesting that sexual dysfunction is a major cause of clinical depression? I'd suggest you don't go there, because if you do, you're probably reversing cause and effect - sexual dysfunction is often a symptom of clinical chronic depression, rather than the reverse.

It can go both ways, and also be it's own cycle. Which happens first really isn't relevent in that case as if not a cause it becomes an aggrevating factor.

If one accepts that impotence can lead to depression (or a worsening of depression), and one accepts that depression can not only have dire personal effects but also have effects on the economy at large...

Well, then the objection to paying for the "pleasure" of others may just fall flat. Using 1990 numbers, if viagra were to lessen the effect of depression by barely 2% then it is worth one billion dollars to the economy.... Which is just screwing around with numbers to make something sound good because we are dealing on the slim margins when considering medicaid, but still...

Whether viagra is a cost-effective program remains to be seen, I don't have the data to make that claim, but based on these numbers it seems reasonable to recognize that possibility. That prevention is cheaper than cure is one of those things that everyone agrees on in principle, but since prevention is often unneccessary (no crystal ball) it is seen as waste without looking towards the big picture... Especially when a "moral" objection can be made because the prevention might be enjoyable for someone....

 

[RandFan]

Well... It is seriously contended that impotence can lead to larger, more serious problems like depression, not to mention the breakdown of a marriage relationship. It isn't quite as simple as mere pleasure....

Yes, but not having enough money, living in a bad part of town, having wrinkles, being bald, being over weight, etc., can cause serious problems like depression and breakdown of a marriage. Why is this the realm of government. Just because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean that we should.

 

[Suddenly]

Yes, but not having enough money, living in a bad part of town, having wrinkles, being bald, being over weight, etc., can cause serious problems like depression and breakdown of a marriage. Why is this the realm of government. Just because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean that we should.

It is a cost benefit thing.

If it cost 2 billion dollars to avoid 10 billion dollars in waste, is it not rational economic behavor to spend the 2 billion?

The government does this all the time. Roads for example, cost money to build... crime costs money to prevent...

If there was a pill that eliminated (or reduced to any degree) all the above things you mentioned, and that pill cost less than the benefit it causes, why not?

All hypothetical of course...