Afternoon Delight? Only If You're Wealthy

As a member of the "Make Love, Not War" and "Better Living Through Chemistry" generation, this article, Companies Fight to Ensure Coverage for Erectile Drugs, in today's NYTimes caught my eye. The issue centers on whether or not Medicare's drug program should pay for what some lawmaker's refer to as "lifestyle drugs" for our nation's seniors. Well, now. I don't normally come down on the side of the pharmaceutical companies, but this time I find myself (rather uncomfortably) in their camp. Why is that? Frankly, when it comes to sex, I just have to say I'm in favor of it. And if certain people think a healthy sex life is a "lifestyle" rather than a function of a healthy "life," I believe they are dysfunctional in more ways than a drug like Viagra is capable of overcoming. But what truly offends me about the Medicare debate is the unspoken, unacknowledged class element to whatever decision lawmakers arrive at. Wealthier seniors will be able to afford drugs like Viagra and Cialis whether or not coverage is afforded by Medicare. Poor seniors will not be invited to the party. A healthy and vigorous sex life should not be viewed as a lifestyle choice for those who can afford it. Instead, the benefit of these new drugs - for men and women - should be extended to everyone. After all, our world might be a better, kinder place if our current leaders didn't have to expend quite so much effort compensating for their shortcomings with military chest thumping. An afternoon "nap" might advance the cause of peace and harmony more effectively.