This one's going to bug me all weekend:
MADISON, Wis. — With the district in a financial crisis and hundreds of its members facing layoffs, the Milwaukee teachers union is taking a peculiar stand: fighting to get their taxpayer-funded Viagra back.
The union has asked a judge to order the school board to again include Pfizer Inc.'s erectile-dysfunction drug and similar pills in its health insurance plans.
The filing is the latest in a two-year legal campaign in which the union has argued, so far unsuccessfully, that the board's policy of excluding erectile-dysfunction drugs discriminates against male employees. The union says Viagra, Cialis, Levitra and others are necessary treatment for “an exclusively gender-related condition.”
"Gender-related condition" -- hey I could be a victim, too. Maybe there's a class-action suit somewhere in my future. I don't feel too sorry for these men, though. With the $26 billion union payoff stimulus
Comments
Would one of you staunch union supporters (think littlejohn)please justify this unions' demand?
I would defend it, if it were a politician making the demand. After all, to scr*w us properly, they would need this.
Well, Tim, I appreciate that you remembered me, but honestly, why do you think Viagra should be excluded?
Obviously, it falls in the category of "lifestyle drugs," that is, medication you could do without, but would be happier to receive.
Would you object to depressed psychiatric patients receiving Prozac? How about menopausal women getting estrogen? None of those is essential to life, but all make life more pleasant.
Would you go all the way and deny pain medication to people (like me) with arthritis in their backs?
This is a slippery slope, my friend, and I think the ball is now in your court.
Cordially, littlejohn
My suggestion would be to offer them a popsicle stick and some duct tape.
Jesus, man, are you really that mean?
I'm not religious and I don't subscribe to any particular moral creed other than "Do unto others...", but I honestly would run into a burning building to save you or your family. I don't care that we vote differently.
Do you really want to laugh at the genuine suffering of human beings just to save a couple of cents on your paycheck stub?
If you were to see me injured in, say, a car wreck, would you laugh at me for being a silly liberal and refuse to lend a helping hand?
Your hatred for people less fortunate than you simply baffles me. I refuse to believe that you're an evil person, but you come across as one.
I guess I'm just another naive liberal, natural "prey" for you tough-guy conservative "predators."
I'm a big guy. I could kick your butt into next week, but I would never consider it. I abhor violence. That's the difference between us.
Silly me, I forgot to refer back to the section of the Constitution that stipulates the right to an erection.
They don't have a "right" to health insurance, much less a right to an erection.
Guess what? You also will not find written into the Constitution a right to privacy, any definition of marriage and any definition of "life."
Don't get me started of no mention of an air force, lol!
AJ
Seriously, what on Earth makes you socialists think the government has a responsibility to maintain your erection?
I know, that's redundant, you're socialists, you prefer the state to wipe your arse from cradle to grave.
That's working like a charm in Greece, isn't it?
I ran across this article this morning and thought it appropriate to this post.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7945785/Councils-pay-for-prostitutes-for-the-disabled.html
because this is exactly where we are headed with this mindset of people like Littllejohns that believes the government has a responsibility to make your life complete...