Congresman Moran's News Commentary

Who would have ever thought that a Republican controlled White House and Congress would use American tax dollars to pay for sex? It seems like an outrageous statement, except that it’s completely true.

Starting in January of 2006, the new Medicare Prescription Drug law will go into effect and one of the drugs that will be covered under this new benefit is erectile dysfunction or ED drugs. Don’t get me wrong, people that suffer from ED should seek treatment including prescription drugs. But should a non-essential, life-enhancing rather than life-saving drug be covered by the taxpayer? Not to mention the fact that there is a growing number of ED drug users who have no medical need for the drugs, but take them anyway to increase performance.

The unfortunate reality is that the pool of funds for Medicare is limited and competitive. Other drugs that actually save lives and make sick people well will have to jockey for these limited resources. Is it fair to pit people with chronic pain, high blood pressure, and even cancer up against ED sufferers? Today it’s erectile dysfunction. Tomorrow will it be hair loss medication? Botox? Where do we draw the line?

The ballooning cost of the prescription benefit is also a major issue. When the President and Majority Party pitched this proposal to the public, we were told it would cost $400 billion over 10 years. After the law’s passage, it was revealed that pressure was applied to Medicare’s chief financial analyst to hide the true cost, $134 billion greater than had been publicly stated. This figure has now been revised upward once again, to a staggering $720 billion. That’s a big price to pay for a law whose flaws will become very apparent to seniors once it is fully implemented, and covering ED drugs will only increase the price tag further.

No one can deny that these drugs are popular. Pfizer, maker of Viagra, estimates that since it was approved by the FDA in 1998, about 16 million men have used the drug. Maybe that’s why every time we turn on the television these days, no matter if it’s during breakfast or the Super Bowl, we are being inundated by ads for the leading ED drugs: Viagra, Cialis and Levitra.

There was a time when these advertisements had a touch of class. Commercials featuring former Senator Bob Dole were age appropriate and spoke to the issue of ED with maturity and discretion. Now, turn the clock forward a mere 6 or 7 years, and almost every ED ad employs large font and a vocal announcer touting the dangerous potential “side effect” of a four hour experience.

Many parents with young children are upset by this type of advertising, especially during family viewing hours. No parent wants to have to explain what an “experience” lasting more than four hours is while their child watches the afternoon shows. The issue of sex is important for parents to discuss with their children, but they should be able to do so when they feel their family is ready to discuss it, not have their hand forced by advertisers on public airwaves.

For these reasons, I am working with members on both sides of the aisle to introduce legislation curbing the hours that ED ads can be aired. They would be subjected to the hours which hard liquor ads voluntarily follow, staying off the air between the 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. I believe the public should have a say as to what is appropriate to show on the public airwaves, and this is a step towards giving them that ability.