This is just a spur-of-the-moment, silly, half-baked post.
I am sure I will hear about it. I have considered disabling comments.
You may probably want to skip it, ignore it, trash it …
You ask: Why even write it then?
Well, if you must know and have gotten this far, I guess I will have to indulge you.
In a very recent post — it doesn’t matter which — the statement was made, “For the last decade, Viagra was covered by insurance, no problem, and the pill was not.”
A reader — it doesn’t matter who — commented (the comment was eventually released from moderation after the clever substitution of *** for the letters “agr” in “Viagra”): “This is just not true. There are insurances that do not cover ED medications, including Medicare and Medicaid.“
Note that the post author had not mentioned Medicare — just “insurance.” (Technically, I guess, Medicare is insurance)
Since I favor coverage of “the pill” both by Medicare and insurance companies, I was anxious to refute or, at the very least, diminish the credibility of the claim that Medicare does not or did not cover Viagra — even though it was not necessary to refute it since the author did not say so.
Well, I couldn’t immediately find any evidence to refute the claim that Medicare does not, or did not, cover ED medications.
So, what the heck, how about the “next best thing.” How about a source that intimates that Medicare does pay for ED medications.
Voilà. I found “just the ticket” in an article in the March 14, 2011 issue of the reputable “The Hill.”
The article’s title: “Medicare paid $3.1M for Viagra, other erectile-dysfunction drugs.”
Proudly, I immediately wrote my rebuttal — albeit a weak one — to the claim that “Medicare does not cover ED medications”:
Of course I knew that the article was referring to the $3.1 million improper payments made by Medicare for sexual or erectile-dysfunction treatments — $3 million for Viagra alone.
And, “equally of course,” I was not trying to bamboozle anyone (The article was there for everyone to read). I was just glossing over the important difference between proper and improper Medicare payments for Viagra, just to be able to dispute a political or social opinion I do not agree with.
What motivated me to write about this stupid subject?
Well, sometimes it gets old to see readers — and I include myself here — write “gotcha-kind” of comments, focus on a small inaccuracy or take a single word or remark out of context and fixate on those aspects rather than debate the overall thrust and intent of the post/comment and its author, respectively.
Believe me, we all most of us are at times guilty of it, and thus all most of us immediately recognize this practice.
For my part, after this very public catharsis, I will try very hard to mend my ways.
But why the inane title?
First, it may be an appropriate title for an inane post.
Second, I chose it to illustrate a point.
If an author or reader were to include the claim that “the sky is blue” as a material part of a highly charged political or social argument, chances are that a reader not sharing such political or social views would find and quote evidence that the sky is not blue, and be technically correct — but “common-sensically” wrong.
We do this very often and it negatively affects the flow of ideas and interrupts what could be a great debate.
Well, time to end my soliloquy.
If you haven’t read this far, congratulations! — although you’ll never know that you have been congratulated,
If you have read this far, I sympathize and must say, if the shoe fits — it fits me perfectly — try not to get too comfortable in it and try to get a new one. (A new pair might be better).
If it doesn’t fit, well you have wasted an entire five minutes reading this crap. But thanks, anyway
By the way, my silly comment is still “in moderation,” probably because the word “Viagra” is buried in the link. Very clever spam detector.
Fortunately, authors are apparently permitted to write about Viagra — we’ll see.
Image, courtesy shutterstock.com
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.