Sunday, April 5, 2009

Am I The Only One Who Finds This Amusing?

From the You Just Can't Make This Up Department:

I received a letter and attached rider from my health insurance carrier informing me of a policy coverage change.

It seems that effective immediately, my carrier will no longer be covering any procedure, treatment or supplies relating to erectile dysfunction for registered sex offenders.

Um, first of all, duh. Second, is this really a problem for sex offenders? I mean, do these pervs really go to the doctor and say gee doc, I seem to be having a little trouble raising the ol' flagpole when I'm looking at kiddie porn? ( I guess Kolko's out of luck.) Secondly, did it really take the suits at my carrier this long to realize this? I guess they're looking to cut costs everywhere.


WebGirl said...

I guess the Libertarian in me actually finds this a little problematic. Mind you, I'm not defending sex offenders, but who the heck is the insurance company to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't based on moral repugnance? If ED is deemed an actual disorder, then why shouldn't everyone be entitled to treatment? And remember that "sex offenders" covers a long list of crimes, some possibly not so heinous. For example, if a 21 year old man has sex with a willing 17 year old woman, that's statutory rape in some states, and he gets a criminal record as a sex offender. Then, let's say, 5 years later, he's married and he gets cancer, and the chemo gives him ED. Is he not entitled to treatment? Of course, this is not a typical scenario, but is it not possible?

Look, I don't think child molesters or other monsters should get any assistance in this area, but that's a moral judgment. I can also see where abuse of ED treatments is highly possible. But again, no one should ever be denied treatment based on a moral judgment. Ask the Israeli doctors who treat terrorists what they think of this.

Nice Jewish Guy said...

Interesting point. Insurance companies already decide who can get what kind of treatment, and it's never always fair. Perhaps they see this as a liability issue; they cover Viagra for a registered sex offender, who then goes and... offends, and they theoretically incur vicarious liability for enabling the act. I can already see the lawsuits. Then again, I can see the lawsuits brought by sex offenders, too. I guess the lawyers thought that this was the lesser minefield.

WebGirl said...

I hate insurance companies. I hate when they have any say in medical treatment.

I can totally see some idiot suing the makers of Viagra for a sex crime. I also hate frivilous law suits.

Rapists rape people. Viagra doesn't rape people.

MK said...

WG - wake up and smell the manure. Insurance companies, and I believe here you really mean HMOs, already dictate, to a large extent, who gets what treatment. This can go so far as to deny life saving procedures. Insurance companies, like all companies, are in business to make money, not to help people. They what they must for their customers, no more no less. If you really want "full" coverage, you can purchase a plan to insure anything. Assuming you can afford it.

WebGirl said...

MK, what makes this different is that unlike typical greedy, selfish financial decisions that insurance companies make when they interfere with a patient's care, this one is based on moral repugnance. We don't like you so we're not going to allow you to be treated, (even though most treatments for ED are probably really cheap). Try to imagine the uproar this would cause if they decided not to treat homosexuals for ED because they found them morally repugnant. They'd get legally clobbered. The reason they can sneak this one by is because most norrmal people are disgusted by sex offenders. But moral judgment is moral judgment. It's not for insurance companies to dole out punishment.

I think it's also because many people don't really recognize ED as a real disorder. They are probably picturing some greasy pervert trying to get aroused looking at kiddie porn, and insurance money rightfully denied to the bastard. But ED is a real disorder. It happens very often in men as a side effect of other treatments, like chemo. Imagine a man who cannot conceive a child with his wife, or bond physically with her at all, for years. That's real ED.

Yeah, whatever, I hate insurance companies. They, more than anyone, have ruined the healthcare system.

kisarita said...

it's not about moral judgement, its about protecting kids, you idiots....

so in theory there shouldn't be any problem with it but practically it really doesn't make sense because they can molest kids in other ways not just with their dicks

WebGirl said...


First of all, don't call me or my co-blogger an idiot. We try to have mature, intelligent dialogue here. You don't have to agree with anything said here, but I don't put up with personal insults. I could do without the vulgar language too, but whatever floats your boat.

Now to your comment...obviously it's about protecting kids. Duh. But when you deny someone medical treatment because he has a history of harming kids, that would be a moral judgment. We don't deny medical treatment to convicted criminals in jail, but apparently it's okay to deny it to criminals who are out of jail if they were convicted of sexual crimes. This is a slippery slope that could prove to be very dangerous. Everyone wants to protect kids. That's a no-brainer. But we don't want insurance companies arbitrarily deciding whom to treat.