I rarely watch television news, but during this evening's exercise, I did. When I watch television programs, they're usually DVRed and I skip the commercials. I guess I'm remembering the long-ago assertion that by using cable you'd be paying for your broadcasts and not have to put up with commercial messages, but I digress.
Tonight, I was able to watch a Cialis commercial and I noticed that the people in the commercial either look as if they're the parents of older teens or college-age students, or at least at the upper end of childbearing years. Given that, I'm assuming that the uses to which Cialis is intended to be put is for recreational reasons, not so that the couple shown can have more children (if any, since none are ever shown).
Given the outcry from some people [low-end example] about insurance-covered birth control pills meant for women, which allows the women to have sex without the consequence of pregnancy (whether or not that is what the treatment is meant to affect), why is there no similar complaint about insurance coverage for the recreational sex pills for men?
Comments