Demands on Viagra Coverage

Thank you for your editorial (“Viagra Goes Political,” July 11) on the government demands to mandate that insurers cover the costs of the pricey anti-impotence drug. To the Clinton administration and California legislators, I say, wait a minute, what about mandating contraception/sterilization coverage first? Then, if there’s any money left over, let them (men) have their sex lives back. We have too many unwanted babies born every day. Meanwhile, the public and managed care providers are supposed to pay for “lifestyle enhancing” drugs.

My health care company has just approved Viagra while it does not cover sterilization or contraception for women. Who’s having all the fun here? Sounds like discrimination to me.

GILLIAN HENCHY

Woodland Hills

* Your editorial misses the point. Yes, the government should not come down on HMOs that refuse to pay the “$8 to $10 a pill” cost for Viagra, but not only because it unnecessarily interferes with proper cost judgments by HMOs and Medicaid programs; if the government does not force payment of this outrageous amount, maybe the real culprits, the pharmaceutical companies that are bleeding the rest of society solely based on the popularity of the drug, may find it more profitable to reduce the cost of the drug rather than lose a large bloc of potential buyers.

ROBERT S. HENRY

San Gabriel

* It doesn’t make any sense to spend millions on Viagra for the temporary satisfaction of a few while cutting necessary treatments to many seriously ill patients. Tell me how many people died of impotence so far? I know millions died of cancer, AIDS and heart attack.

CHIKARA DON OKA

Los Angeles